• From: Alaric Snell <alaric@a...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:14:46 +0100 (BST)

Quoting David Brownell <david-b@p...>:

> 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.

<?xml-include uri="http://www.foo.bar.com/fiddle.xml#...xpointer or whatever..."
?>

 - if not, then what ARE processing instructions for?

> 
> - Dave
> 

ABS

-- 
                               Alaric B. Snell
 http://www.alaric-snell.com/  http://RFC.net/  http://www.warhead.org.uk/
   Any sufficiently advanced technology can be emulated in software  

• Follow-Ups:
  • 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: Peter Flynn <peter@s...>

• 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...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML Blueberry
• Next by Date: Re: Escher could have drawn it (Re: XML Schema and Entities)
• 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