Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Sat, 2004-10-23 at 11:10, G. Ken Holman wrote:
> Moreover, no XML file with entity references using the above declarations
> would be well-formed because existing XML processors seeing the entity
> references would not have associated XML 1.0 or XML 1.1 declarations for
> them. Therefore, you cannot call such a file an XML file.
Aye, Amelia contacted me off list and pointed me in this direction(and
to the 04/04 discussion regarding EDML).
> >With the many validation mechanisms available today, it seems a bit
> >obtuse to rely solely on DTDs for sources of entities.
> Ummmmmmm ... with an existing method of doing entities why introduce a
> different way of doing them? Any different way would be an incompatible
> way. Your proposed way would render all existing XML processors incapable
> of reading the document, since you've violated syntactic rules that are
> already standardized. It wouldn't be XML.
Well, such a mechanism would require a version bump then. I guess this
is frowned upon. (;
Although, it's pointless for me to defend this stance, as I'm convinced
that it's not the right way due to these points and the possibility of a
method that may be a bit more acceptable. I plan to post another message
regarding this other method soon..
> I hope this helps.
Absolutely, thank you for your response.
James William Pye
This is a digitally signed message part