[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 09:37, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> There is nothing preventing you from doing this today as part of your
> local processes. You can take document A, merge the XIncludes to
> produce document B, and then validate, canonicalize, encrypt, and/or
> digitally sign document A and/or document B. Each process will have
> the clear and unambiguous result defined by the specs.
>
> Just don't tell me that document A and document B are the same thing,
> or expect that I will be satisfied with working only with document B
> and never want to touch document A.
This may be a set of tools you want to have, but I have strong doubts
that this tool makes sense as a general XML facility. It seems to blur
the logical/entity models quite severely, and keeps entity issues alive
much further into XML processing than was previously the case.
Its lack of a clear processing model (when do these things get processed
and what is there relation to other W3C specs) and its content-polluting
fallback suggest some serious potential for chaos.
Adding this to core of XML, as some have suggested for an XML 2.0, seems
like a good way to ensure that developers are as mystified by missing
content in XML 2.0 (per XInclude) as they were in XML 1.0 (per NV
parsers and external entities). If anything, XInclude seems likely to
afflict a lot more of these kinds of problems.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
|
