Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 10:39, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > But there is a very clear processing model. It only becomes unclear > when you read things into the specs that just aren't there. An > xinclude:include element is an element. It is treated like any other > element, nothing more, nothing less. It is both an element and a "syntax for general purpose inclusion.... merging a number of XML information sets into a single composite Infoset." XInclude explicitly avoids definining relationships with XML Schemas and DTDs, but this kind of non-definition feels eerily to me like Namespaces in XML, which is concise but has left us debating for the last few years. Documents may now be read as describing multiple infosets - one including XInclude elements as elements, one representing the result of complete infoset merging, and various infosets representing possible failure states. Perhaps XML Pipeline Definition Language [1] will ease this pain, letting people specify what exactly they want to see in their canonicalized document. [1] - (http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-pipeline/) -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com
|
