[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> I think someone else suggested using '%'.
I believe this was Jimmy Cerra on Danny Ayers blog comments... just a
guess though:
http://dannyayers.com/archives/2004/11/05/exorcising-qnames/
> imo I would be ok with '%' and not actally changing things at the parser
> level (processing of them would still be left to layers above the
> parser). I will draw an analogy, eg, with c's printf syntax. printf's
> syntax isn't part of the core language, but at the same time makes
> things more flexible. people, however, realize in many cases to be
> careful with '%', as probably those dealing with a modified syntax would.
> probably %% could be used as an escaped form of %.
This feels like a very dangerous idea-- of course this is probably just
because I just got done implementing changes in AElfred for everything
entities. if anything in XML is going to be escaped there are existing
mechanisms to do this:
% &percent; &perc; etc...
Secondly, there are probably hundreds of thousands of documents
(probably more) that utilize % in content already because it was
specifically allowed and carried no importance in content. The hours
upon hours to make such a backward incompatible change would render it
unusable.
I think that this problem can only be solved in one of two ways... (a)
eliminating namespaces altogether or (b) add a new layer. Though many of
us would like to eliminate namespaces, many wouldn't-- and the backward
compatibility issue will hurt us for a long time... adding a new layer
is disagreeable as well, but plausible. Something along the lines of the
XML Schema key-keyref mechanism (which I tend to avoid) is a step in the
right direction-- but there is probably a more elegant solution similar
to xml:id. I am not sure what that is though... just a hunch.
Cheers,
Jeff Rafter
|
