[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XML QuotedCData question
Thanks for replying, Norbert. You are taking me a little more literally than I meant -- you're right that macros in C are a cleaner design than the SGML botch, and can be implemented in a separate pass more easiy. However, > <!ENTITY %UnixSpecifics SYSTEM "http...."> > > <![%Dos;[ > %DosSpecifics; > ]> is very like #define DOS 1 #ifdef DOS # include DosSpecifics #endif except that CPP allows general expressions there. It turns out that more robust programming language avoid macros altogether (e.g. C++) because there is isufficient compile-time checking, but that doesn't really affect XML! When I've looked at this in the past for SGML, it has seemed to me that one coud only do partial expansion with a pre-processor. But really I was thinking of a conceptually separate pass rather than a completely separate one -- you'd need to have some feedback and a shred symbol table. It may also be appropriate to treat parameter entities and text entities quite differently -- I'm not sure. Lee xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To unsubscribe, send to majordomo@i... the following message; unsubscribe xml-dev List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa@i...)
|
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
|