Re: entity definitions
> It's not standards-lawyering that's needed, but code! Which is more or less the opposite of what I suggested:-) I think that the problem is that it is clearly possible to implement something, but unless it is "XML" what's the point? XML threw out lots of features from SGML (not this one, it has to be said) clearly any of them could be implemented back in by implementations but interoperability comes by everyone agreeing to stick to the standard (even if they wished the standard had some extra features). You've been kind enough to sit at Math WG tables at W3C meetings so you can be harangued about this often enough, but unless there was some clear indication that some entity changes would get into XML in the forseable future, I'd rather not see the features be added in non-standard additions to implementations. The "Consensus View" of the Core WG is so strongly worded against any such change that it seems to me that widespread implementation of non-standard variants of XML would do more harm than good. David ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________
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