Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 11:13:39AM +0000, Sean McGrath wrote:
> At 05:30 08/03/2002 -0500, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > So would such a large refactoring of any practical use? (independantly
> >of the possibility of cleaning up some of the grey area where some of the
> >core specification interract in bizarre ways.)
> It would legitimize (and help harmonize) common practice. Anybody you puts
> external general entities into XHTML, SOAP message bodies etc. already
> finds out that hard way that XML as practiced differs significantly
> from XML as specified.
That's true for a subset of the applications of XML-1.0. But all
users of DocBook XML for example currently expect and in most case use
external parsed entities. It is a common practise too (and I would not say
that DocBook XML is a small niche technology, I see it used more and more).
So it really depends in which context you practize XML-1.0, hence my point
one will still have to provide this functionality of 1.0 in the future...
A refactoring which would not provide the needs for a significant subset
of the current user base would just end up as a fragmentation and we shall
not reproduce something like the DTD -> Schemas transition mismatch. IMHO
of course, and speaking for myself as always...
Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
email@example.com | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/