[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XInclude vs SAX vs validation
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > I'm wondering if for Infoset compatibility it's time to add the > comment() method to the ContentHandler class and require parsers to > report comments. I think this is a Bad Thing (comments should be discarded with the rest of the lexical cruft). In any event, citing the Infoset is no justification. Remember that conformance to the Infoset means citing what parts of it you use and what parts you don't. XInclude is silent on this point, which means that it transmits just so much of the Infoset as the underlying infoset creators provided. Historically, comments are in the infoset because they are in the XPath 1.0 data model, and they are there, IIRC, because some (benighted, IMHO) people thought that scripts embedded in HTML were comments because they began with "<!--" and ended with "-->". (The HTML DTD makes it clear that SCRIPT is a CDATA element, a type that does not exist in XML, in which everything is quoted except the sequence "</" followed by a letter, which terminates the element.) Speaking for myself, as always, not the Core WG. -- Not to perambulate || John Cowan <jcowan@r...> the corridors || http://www.reutershealth.com during the hours of repose || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan in the boots of ascension. \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel
|
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
|