[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer

• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 16:01:23 -0400
• In-reply-to: <p04330102b9e09076daad@[192.168.254.4]>
• References: <4.2.0.58.20021026121948.01318b98@p...><000001c27c0d$7a2e7800$6401a8c0@pcukmka><000001c27c0d$7a2e7800$6401a8c0@pcukmka><4.2.0.58.20021026121948.01318b98@p...>

At 02:36 PM 10/26/2002 -0400, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>We should remember that there's a reason entity resolution is not required 
>in XML. The spec states:
>...
>These reasons apply equally well to XInclude as they do to external 
>entities. Browsers may choose not to load included elements.

I'm well-aware of the reasoning.  I just find the costs this approach 
imposes on predictability to be far more expensive than the costs in 
bandwidth it avoids.

I've been unhappy about this for a long time, as expressed at:
http://simonstl.com/articles/interop/

but I can't say I expect the situation to change any time soon.  Various 
other XML technologies have since introduced problems far worse than these, 
so hoping for 'progress' on these matters seems quite futile at this point.

Simon St.Laurent
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue

• References:
  • RE: ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • RE: ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
  • RE: ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer
• Next by Date: Re: Re: What are Schemas For?
• Previous by thread: RE: ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer
• Next by thread: Re: ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread