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

RE: Managing Innovation

• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Managing Innovation
• From: Murali Mani <mani@C...>
• Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:46:30 -0700 (PDT)
• In-reply-to: <16252.39742.367882.848298@m...>

I also saw mentioning limiting depth of documents, do you believe limiting
width also?? You can have

<!ELEMENT a b*>

which can be potentially infinite..

best regards,
murali.

I think it is argument of engineering based on current experiences, hoping
that it will hold for ever/reasonably long time. Even I am not sure if we
should have such limits in standards.

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, David Megginson wrote:

> Rick Marshall writes:
>
>  > that's what ibm said 20 years ago and every design since has had to
>  > cope with 640k base memory ranges and other "that'll be more than
>  > enough" decisions.
>
> I understand that argument well, but in this case, we're not talking
> about limiting the overall length of XML documents.  Let's try not to
> imagine only the present, but the future as well -- can anyone make a
> reasonable case for an XML element or attribute name longer than 4096
> characters (for example)?
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
> David

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Managing Innovation
    • From: David Megginson <dmeggin@a...>

• References:
  • RE: Managing Innovation
    • From: David Megginson <dmeggin@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Managing Innovation
• Next by Date: RE: Managing Innovation
• Previous by thread: RE: Managing Innovation
• Next by thread: RE: Managing Innovation
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread