Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 11:13:39AM +0000, Sean McGrath wrote: > At 05:30 08/03/2002 -0500, Daniel Veillard wrote: > > So would such a large refactoring of any practical use? (independantly > >of the possibility of cleaning up some of the grey area where some of the > >core specification interract in bizarre ways.) > > It would legitimize (and help harmonize) common practice. Anybody you puts > external general entities into XHTML, SOAP message bodies etc. already > finds out that hard way that XML as practiced differs significantly > from XML as specified. That's true for a subset of the applications of XML-1.0. But all users of DocBook XML for example currently expect and in most case use external parsed entities. It is a common practise too (and I would not say that DocBook XML is a small niche technology, I see it used more and more). So it really depends in which context you practize XML-1.0, hence my point one will still have to provide this functionality of 1.0 in the future... A refactoring which would not provide the needs for a significant subset of the current user base would just end up as a fragmentation and we shall not reproduce something like the DTD -> Schemas transition mismatch. IMHO of course, and speaking for myself as always... 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/
|
