On 01/06/2012 22:58, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
CAPJCua21BVKLbAtveDMywPE4aHo_ecGhy7W2OFPYbm_bNEE_pw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
wrote:
I couldn't even support such an idea in principle. For me,
one of the cornerstones of XML's value is in completely
determining the lexical space. I think leaving entity
interpretation to applications would kick a huge hole in
that.
Actually, it strikes me as quite an intelligent layering. If
xinclude processing can be done in a different layer from XML
parsing, why not entity expansion? In fact, it's strongly
arguable that it SHOULD be a separate process; one of the use
cases for entity expansion is to give a level of indirection
so that the same entity reference can be replaced by different
text at different places/times, and that works much better if
it isn't embedded in the parser.
Well you can find plenty of debate about XInclude and its
separate layer, and it distinctions from general entities. Not
something I really feel like going into. I am, however,
surprised that you say that replacing the same entity
reference with different text at different places in the
document is a use-case. That's news to me, but it is a
use-case that suits elements rather than entities.
I didn't mean different places in the same document. Perhaps I
should have said "in different situations", e.g. using one expansion
in draft documents and another in published documents.
Michael Kay
Saxonica
|
