• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 09:14:47 -0400

At 02:23 AM 7/31/00 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>The main argument is that they don't play well with compound documents,
>because they are outside the regular element tree structure.  As such,
>they are considered hacks.

Drop the passive voice.  Who considers them hacks?

(The Common XML folks consider them risky for other reasons, but I haven't
heard anyone calling them hacks on SML-DEV, so I'd look elsewhere.)

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books

• References:
  • Re: Question About Namespaces and DTDs
    • From: Norman Walsh <ndw@n...>
  • Re: Question About Namespaces and DTDs
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@l...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Why the Infoset?
• Next by Date: Re: Why XML? RE: Why the Infoset?
• Previous by thread: Re: Question About Namespaces and DTDs
• Next by thread: Re: Question About Namespaces and DTDs
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread