|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: SGML, XML and SML
> I think it would be very nice, from a processing point of view, to have > an XML variant that didn't have CDATA sections or DTDs (although entity > definitions are useful!). 1. Why entities should live in the core, if one can use any macroprocessor to get *more* flexible functionality? 2. How often do we need entities outside the DTD's ? > I suspect CDATA sections are hard to live > without if you're writing XML documents about HTML or XML, though. Let us have <CDATA> element ? I think up to 3-5 elements with 'hardcoded' semantics will not cause a big problem. I think it is not a big problem in traditional languages to use reserved keywords to avoid function names like for() or if() ;-) However, this suggestion kills compatibility with XML. It's why I think that SML vs XML is very similiar to XML vs SGML. At some point it would be easier to break the compatibility than to support legacy. As far as I understand, exactly that thing happened with XML vs SGML. However, because usualy that CDATA is all about turning < > into < and > it may be OK to live without CDATA at all - we *already* have similiar problems with XML ;-) Rgds. Paul. 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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; unsubscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||

Cart








