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

Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• From: Norman Walsh <ndw@n...>
• Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 12:25:18 -0500
• In-reply-to: <6.0.0.22.0.20050204190356.022da168@p...>
• References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0501280904130.20504-100000@s...><200502032213.56841.david.lyon@c...><4202A983.6030803@z...> <4202C65B.7000207@o...><6.0.0.22.0.20050204175833.022d1828@p...><4203A46F.6050704@w...><6.0.0.22.0.20050204190356.022da168@p...>
• User-agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)

/ Toni Uusitalo <toni.uusitalo@p...> was heard to say:
| Yes. I tested with the current version - It works. But I think the
| point still remains - it's not easy to get the DTD parameter entity
| expansion right ;-)

I don't think XML 2.0 parser writers will have to worry about getting
parameter entity expansion right. I'd be stunned if any DTD syntax
survived any revision of XML.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@n...> | Allow children to be happy in their own
http://nwalsh.com/            | way, for what better way will they ever
                              | find?--Dr. Johnson

PGP signature

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>

• References:
  • xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: David Lyon <david.lyon@c...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Toni Uusitalo <toni.uusitalo@p...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Karl Waclawek <karl@w...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Toni Uusitalo <toni.uusitalo@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Next by Date: RE: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Previous by thread: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Next by thread: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread