[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> It's not standards-lawyering that's needed, but code!
Which is more or less the opposite of what I suggested:-)
I think that the problem is that it is clearly possible to implement
something, but unless it is "XML" what's the point?
XML threw out lots of features from SGML (not this one, it has to be
said) clearly any of them could be implemented back in by
implementations but interoperability comes by everyone agreeing
to stick to the standard (even if they wished the standard had some
extra features).
You've been kind enough to sit at Math WG tables at W3C meetings so you
can be harangued about this often enough, but unless there was some
clear indication that some entity changes would get into XML in the
forseable future, I'd rather not see the features be added in
non-standard additions to implementations. The "Consensus View" of the
Core WG is so strongly worded against any such change that it seems to
me that widespread implementation of non-standard variants of XML would
do more harm than good.
David
________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________
|
