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

Re: UTF-8+names

• To: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
• Subject: Re: UTF-8+names
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 18:58:42 -0700
• Cc: Alessandro Triglia <sandro@m...>,'Miles Sabin' <miles@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <1ad801c396a4$3a56dd00$6601a8c0@snobird>
• References: <001801c39697$38fdc890$42a7c044@aldebaran> <1ad801c396a4$3a56dd00$6601a8c0@snobird>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007

Bob Foster wrote:

> I think users want not to lose the following when they use non-DTD
> validation:
> 
> - Internal entities for common well-known entity sets, like those of XHTML,
> MathML, etc.
> - Internal entities for user-defined shorthand
> - External parsed entities (includes)

You may be right, in which case +names will fall on barren ground.  I 
had received the impression that the the first item on your list loomed 
quite a bit larger in the requirements space, if only because there are 
plausible workarounds for the other things.  But that impression could 
be wrong.  If nothing else, the +names proposal will help clarify the 
real requirements.  This is parallel to the situation in software 
development where, rather than ask users what their requirements are - 
you rarely get a useful answer - you build something and say "would this 
do it?" and often you get instant useful feedback. -Tim

• References:
  • RE: UTF-8+names
    • From: "Alessandro Triglia" <sandro@m...>
  • Re: UTF-8+names
    • From: "Bob Foster" <bob@o...>

• Prev by Date: Re: UTF-8+names
• Next by Date: xml to text file
• Previous by thread: RE: UTF-8+names
• Next by thread: Entity support in XML parsers (was: UTF-8+names)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread