• From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• To: Alaric Snell <alaric@a...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 11:36:45 -0700

> > One hopes that the fix still facilitates significant amounts
> > of work being done by stream
> > transforms.  CPP has done #includes as stream operations for decades,
> > and I'm not sure I see why doing it in XML ought to be different.
> 
> I always that that XML including would "obviously" be a processing instruction
> issue, myself.

I should have been more explicit ... by relying on XPointer,
it seems to me that XInclude has crossed the line that
should distinguish core functionality from layered stuff.

It's no longer "low level" (as the XInclude document describes
itself) ... like linking, it's not a "core" function.

Of course, if it didn't use XPointer (maybe it just
made fragment IDs illegal), then it'd be reasonable
as a low level "xml:include" functionality, and this
bit of Escher-philia would largely vanish.

- Dave

• References:
  • RE: XML Schema and Entities
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Escher could have drawn it (Re: XML Schema and Entities)
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: Escher could have drawn it (Re: XML Schema and Entities)
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
  • Re: Escher could have drawn it (Re: XML Schema and Entities)
    • From: Alaric Snell <alaric@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Binary XML
• Next by Date: Re: XML Blueberry
• Previous by thread: Re: Escher could have drawn it (Re: XML Schema and Entities)
• Next by thread: Re: Escher could have drawn it (Re: XML Schema and Entities)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread