[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
/ Robert Koberg <rob@koberg.com> was heard to say:
| forward. Enitites are an anchor. Are
| you saying entities should be left to
| draw to an indefinite length?
You weren't actually asking me, but I'll say anyway: I think an XML
2.0 that doesn't address the needs of folks who currently use entities
to name special purpose characters and strings will not get sufficient
traction in enough communities that I think it would seriously
jeopardize the entire enterprise.
I question the assertion that entities are an anchor, but I'll concede
that the entity delcaration syntax has to go.
If we think of this as a spectrum, several points seem easy to
identify.
0. No entities, no macros, nothing like general parsed entities.
1. Something that works for a single well-defined set of strings
(all the MathML characters, for example), but nothing else.
2. Something that works for a well-defined set of strings that can be
defined (extended) by some mechanism external to an individual
document.
3. Something that works for a well-defined set of strings that can
be defined by some mechanism external to an individual document
but also inside a particular document. Something that has all
the features of general parsed entities.
As I said, I don't think an XML 2.0 is worth pursuing if we select 0
From this list.
I am concerned that 3 is going to be quite complex and highly
controversial because just as there are large communities that *need*
entities, there are large communities that have no need for them
whatsoever.
The really hard, open question to my mind is, where's the 80/20 cut?
Between 1 and 2 or between 2 and 3? (Possibly it's after 3, but my
intuition says that it may not be.)
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The wonder is, not that the field of
http://nwalsh.com/ | stars is so vast, but that man has
| measured it.--Anatole France
PGP signature
|
