[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Peter Hunsberger wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 13:04:09 -0800, Robert Koberg <rob@koberg.com> wrote:
>
>>Amelia A Lewis wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 10:20:42PM +0200, Toni Uusitalo wrote:
>
>
> <snip/>
>
>>>At present, there's no apparent activity targeted toward providing an
>>>alternate entity-definition mechanism.
>>
>>Don't know if you followed the Ant(ish) thread but we use Ant and its
>>filter capabilities to do what entities do. For example, on copying
>>files(ets) like:
>>
>><p>blah blah @psuedoentity@ blah<p>
>>
>>is replaced with its property definition.
>>
>>Alternatively you could use XInclude.
>>
>>Entities blow and are unnecessary.
>
>
> Sure, or just use XSLT and a bunch of other attached machinery.
>
> Somehow this strikes me like telling someone that they don't need a
> trunk on their favorite sports car and if they really want to haul
> groceries around they should go buy a 20 ton dump truck...
I guess I see it different. To keep entities would be more like asking
everyone to own a 20ton dump truck. I guess I don't understand your
point... The thread is about xml moving forward. Enitites are an anchor.
Are you saying entities should be left to draw to an indefinite length?
>
> (Not that I'm a fan of entities either.)
>
Then why are you arguing?
|
