[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Norman Walsh wrote:
> 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.
One radical idea would be to define parseable entities in XML, in a
separate entity namespace, using a simple first-definition-wins rule and
XInclude for the external ones. I wonder why nobody's proposed that? Oh,
wait, a number of people have proposed that. They just get slapped
around here until they go away. ;-}
Bob Foster
> 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
>
|
