Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 13:29:30 -0800, Robert Koberg <email@example.com> wrote:
> Peter Hunsberger wrote:
> > On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 13:04:09 -0800, Robert Koberg <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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?
If you've got to support all of DTD then yes, I'd agree. I don't see
some sort of simple entity mechanism as being that cumbersome. (In
particular if it has a reasonable syntax.)
> > (Not that I'm a fan of entities either.)
> Then why are you arguing?
Perhaps because I'm not so myopic to believe that my needs are true
for the rest of the universe of XML users, or then again, perhaps
because it's Friday afternoon and I'm getting tired from a week long