[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Bob Foster wrote:
> I think users want not to lose the following when they use non-DTD
> validation:
>
> - Internal entities for common well-known entity sets, like those of XHTML,
> MathML, etc.
> - Internal entities for user-defined shorthand
> - External parsed entities (includes)
You may be right, in which case +names will fall on barren ground. I
had received the impression that the the first item on your list loomed
quite a bit larger in the requirements space, if only because there are
plausible workarounds for the other things. But that impression could
be wrong. If nothing else, the +names proposal will help clarify the
real requirements. This is parallel to the situation in software
development where, rather than ask users what their requirements are -
you rarely get a useful answer - you build something and say "would this
do it?" and often you get instant useful feedback. -Tim
|
