Lists Home |
Date Index |
At 09:37 AM 11/1/2002 +0000, Anthony B. Coates wrote:
>** Reply to message from Tim Bray <email@example.com> on Thu, 31 Oct 2002
> > I see your point, but there are all these people out there who keep
> > saying they want a way to give funny characters human-readable names and
> > don't want to use elements because they think structure and content are
> > different. No matter how many times they are told that they shouldn't
> > really need the names and that if they did they should use elements,
> > they keep refusing to take our word for this, so we're gonna have to do
> > something. Sigh.
>It's not that the world doesn't take your word for it.
Actually, It's that the world is allowed to disagree with the current
members of the XML Core WG. The work of any WG is open for review, comment,
approval via process, and then finally community adoption. On this point,
many members of the community are commenting back loudly that this is not
an acceptable solution.
>It's just that (X)HTML
>doesn't take your word for it. If the W3C defined elements for characters for
>HTML, so that character entities could and would be deprecated, everyone else
>would follow suit.
Why would XHTML define something only to deprecate it? Named entities are
something we've been asking for , for a very long time.