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

Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a

• To: "The Deviants" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@g...>
• Date: 04 Feb 2002 10:44:52 +0100
• In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.2.20020203204729.024ed7c0@p...>
• References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020131082226.02822ec0@p...> <4XOKTPSQ3W1VLJ9607AZVUSBAUOYX05.3c586905@MChamp> <093701c1a9f2$71c37820$0a2e249b@n...> <3C589A61.95139DF@p...> <5.1.0.14.2.20020131082226.02822ec0@p...> <5.1.0.14.2.20020203204729.024ed7c0@p...>

* Tim Bray
| 
| But general parsed entities... yecch.  Doing content aggregation at
| the lexical level feels wrong.

I agree completely, both in general and with the points you made.

Since the rules for what is allowed in referenced external entities
are different from the rules for the document entity they work very
poorly as a document management tool.

Another thing is that in a real application you usually want to
control where in the document inclusions are allowed, which means that
entities can't be used. (And yet you can't stop them from being used.)

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >

• References:
  • Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Next by Date: SAF anyone?
• Previous by thread: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Next by thread: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread