[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I'd be surprised if at this point in our history, any would
reverse two bedrock design decisions and one prejudice:
1. Declaration is hardwired so really ignored by XML. I'd bet only
two in five people who work with XML know what an SGML Declaration is
and one of them is retiring next year. It also has features that
no one claims to understand let alone knows how to implement, so
Lord knows what those would do to the complexity/security problem
Tim mentioned.
2. DTDs are bad and validation is optional (except when they aren't such
as getting nbsp past IE or overcoming the malformed markup produced
by HTML/DHTML era objects).
but a small cadre at Extreme Markup would giggle into
the wee hours of the morning.
This could restart an old thread about putting
something-like the SGML Declaration into XML.
len
(back to cursing the DHTMLEditControl that outputs
SGML-like markup that can't be stuffed easily into
XML without hacks)
-
From: Gregory Murphy [mailto:Gregory.Murphy@eng.sun.com]
Maybe SGML would be more secure? Hard limits on element name sizes and
attribute counts could be enforced in the SGML declaration.
|
