[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Joe English writes:
> I've developed a number of vocabularies that could have used
> XInclude, but ended up using a simpler ad-hoc solution instead.
> The main reasons I didn't use XInclude are: XPointer was unnecessary
> for my needs (relative URIs were sufficient, I only needed whole-document
> transclusion); XPointer was unimplementable (at least by me);
> and in a number of cases leaving XInclude out meant I could
> leave out XML namespaces as well (since nothing else in the
> vocabulary called for them).
I chaired a session at XML Europe where Michael Grimley presented a
system from the U.S. Navy that uses XInclude on the client
(implemented in XSLT) for compound documents.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson, david@megginson.com, http://www.megginson.com/
|
