RE: XInclude vs SAX vs validation
> > XInclude could become "low level" by dropping the dependency > on XPointer. The Infoset dependency is no problem (to me :), > but the XPointer dependency changes things substantially; it's > relying on a lot more than XML 1.0 plus infoset. > > - Dave > > Gotcha. You mean "low level" in the sense that the burden of implementation is lower. I was thinking you meant low level as in working "lower" in the stack, ie not on infosets. FWIW, there's been some debate about the utility of XInclude refering to XPointer'd thingies. I personally think it's a reasonable compromise between providing file modularity (what you are proposing) and a complete entity replacement (what others have advocated). We certainly have use cases that deal with modularity smaller than a file. As an editor of various specs, I personally like the inclusion of xml fragments from valid xml documents. But I do understand your point about the amount of machinery being higher to support these use cases. I would argue that if most xml parsers support xpointer, then there's not too much overhead for xpointerized xinclude versus nonxpointerized xinclude. Kind of like XML Base. Dave Orchard
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