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

Re: canonicalization

• To: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Subject: Re: canonicalization
• From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>
• Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 02:56:35 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <3C82B747.5020609@t...>; from tbray@t... on Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 03:52:39PM -0800
• References: <1015032338.3309.3.camel@l...> <p04330103b8a7fd271d04@[192.168.254.4]> <1015178176.5268.43.camel@l...> <p04330104b8a8106aa395@[192.168.254.4]> <1015193078.3350.61.camel@l...> <p04330107b8a85bc15730@[192.168.254.4]> <1015201142.3309.108.camel@l...> <3C82B747.5020609@t...>
• Reply-to: veillard@r...
• User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i

On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 03:52:39PM -0800, Tim Bray wrote:
> Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> 
> > Then that leaves me wondering yet again whether XInclude is as good an
> > idea as its promoters seems to believe.  
> 
> 
> Despite the fact that XInclude seems like an obviously-good idea, I
> do not observe a rush of implementations nor people complaining about
> the recommendation not being done.  I'm not sure, to be honest, if
> the world really eneds it.  I don't for any of my work.  -Tim

  I have at least one large user relying on it. They do DocBook
processing and XInclude allows to split the document like external
parsed entities. But the XInclude chunks can be DTD validated 
directly contrary to entities. Seems a significant improvement for
them. They also validate the result of the XInclude processing
(since DocBook DTD doesn't have xi:include nodes).

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
veillard@r...  | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Marcus Carr <mcarr@a...>

• References:
  • canonicalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Assumptions about URIs
• Next by Date: Re: canonicalization
• Previous by thread: Re: canonicalization
• Next by thread: Re: canonicalization
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread