Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 01:13:22AM -0800, Tim Bray wrote: > Daniel Veillard wrote: > > >>Despite the fact that XInclude seems like an obviously-good idea, I > >>do not observe a rush of implementations nor people complaining about > >>the recommendation not being done. I'm not sure, to be honest, if > >>the world really eneds it. I don't for any of my work. -Tim > > > > I have at least one large user relying on it. They do DocBook > > processing and XInclude allows to split the document like external > > parsed entities. But the XInclude chunks can be DTD validated > > directly contrary to entities. > > > Could you achieve the same effect with a perl script? yes you can also validate and probably 100x time faster a document directly by accessing the node tree with a high level language. And I will argue an awful lot of people still do this too. > I'm beginning to think that trying to do cheap content management > down in the markup just doesn't have a positive payoff. -Tim It's just a matter of API level. As parts get used more they gets forged as API. Better building API at a syntax level than in the programing language syntax. I call this sedimentation... Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/ veillard@r... | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
|
