[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> The fact is XInclude is not what you want it to be and does not do
> what you want it to do. What you want would probably require breaking
> the definition of XML 1.0. You want to redefine what an element means
> and how it is treated by all processes, provided that the element's
> name is xinclude:include. That doesn't seem likely to happen.
>
No, I want to stress the need of a processing model definition for XML
and be able to define if for a specific application I want XInclude (or
external parsed entities) to be resolved before or after the c14n
transformation.
Exactly like I want to be able to say if I want to apply XInclude before
or after processing a schema.
I don't know if it's likely to happen, but I believe that this is a
requirement if we want to move forward with the increasing complexity of
XML processing.
Eric
--
See you in Seattle.
http://knowledgetechnologies.net/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org http://4xt.org http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
