[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: Christian Nentwich <christian@s...>
• Subject: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• From: Norman Walsh <ndw@n...>
• Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:58:57 -0500
• Cc: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>, Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>, Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <1325652765.20050204223132@s...>
• References: <6.0.0.22.0.20050204222038.02251d70@p...><20050204204803.GA31024@t...> <4203E349.9070803@k...><cc159a4a0502041317af483be@m...> <4203E93A.1040302@k...><cc159a4a05020413364d9b45c0@m...> <4203ED67.9090905@k...><1325652765.20050204223132@s...>
• User-agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)

/ Christian Nentwich <christian@s...> was heard to say:
| I see two futures, the simplified one and the courageous one. In the
| simplified future, parameter entities are DEAD DEAD DEAD and not getting
| up again. DTDs are DEAD, general entities are defined in schemas and
| used for character codes ONLY.

I suppose you could make references to undeclared entities a validity
error, instead of a well-formedness error, and declare them in the
schema, but ... I'm not sure everyone's going to want to be forced to
do schema validation just for their special characters.

| In the courageous future we allow
| <bold><italic>nesting</bold></italic>, which would certainly endanger
| the DOM tree species :).
|
| Anything less is no fun, might as well keep XML 1.0.

I see the slogan now, "LMNL or Bust!" :-)

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@n...> | There is no such thing as an absolute
http://nwalsh.com/            | certainty, but there is assurance
                              | sufficient for the purposes of human
                              | life.--John Stuart Mill

PGP signature

• References:
  • 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: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Christian Nentwich <christian@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Where does the "nothing left but toolkits" mythcome from?
• 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