[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
[Rob Lugt]
> Simon St.Laurent wrote
> > >Sure, I was thinking of adding these extensions (perhaps they should be
> > >called contractions) as an option to ElCel's xmlcanon [1]. Would
anybody
> > >find this useful?
> >
> > As long as it's a separate part and not built right into the parser, it
> > sounds good to me.
>
> That would only be possible if the suggested changes were handled by some
> kind of pre-processor. I don't think such a pre-processor would be
viable;
> it would need to have all the features of an XML parser itself. However,
I
> don't see updating the XML parser as being a problem, so long as the
> extensions are controlled by options which are disabled by default.
>
No more options! We have too many already. Options reduce
interoperability.
Cheers,
Tom P
|
