Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Paul Prescod writes:
> There is a third way to read the situation: the optionality of the
> features works to reassure people that XML processing is simple, but the
> usefulness of them will encourage users to request them. (idea: one easy
> way to encourage vendors to implement them is to depend upon them in
> XLL) For instance XLL depends on ID/IDREF.
This doesn't really address the point, though. If notations and data
attributes are optional, then either support for embedding non-XML
objects is also optional, or notations and data attributes are not the
preferred way of embedding non-XML objects. If they are not the
preferred way (you probably rightly suggest that embedded URLs and
MIME/HTTP will be more popular), then why does the spec include them
at all, and cause so much unnecessary confusion among non-SGML people?
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson ak117@f...
Microstar Software Ltd. dmeggins@m...
http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dmeggins/
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
