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

Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?

• To: Norman Walsh <ndw@n...>
• Subject: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
• Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 18:39:28 +0100
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <87mzukme4h.fsf@n...>
• References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0501280904130.20504-100000@s...> <200502032213.56841.david.lyon@c...> <4202A983.6030803@z...> <4202C65B.7000207@o...> <6.0.0.22.0.20050204175833.022d1828@p...> <4203A46F.6050704@w...> <6.0.0.22.0.20050204190356.022da168@p...> <87mzukme4h.fsf@n...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Macintosh/20041206)

Norman Walsh wrote:
> / Toni Uusitalo <toni.uusitalo@p...> was heard to say:
> | Yes. I tested with the current version - It works. But I think the
> | point still remains - it's not easy to get the DTD parameter entity
> | expansion right ;-)
> 
> I don't think XML 2.0 parser writers will have to worry about getting
> parameter entity expansion right.

Well, they'll probably have to worry about getting XML 1.x right though, 
so from the implementation side the problem won't really go away.

> I'd be stunned if any DTD syntax survived any revision of XML.

Surely you jest, at its F2F last week the XBC WG resolved that none of 
our use cases could be addressed without binary ATTLISTs and NOTATIONs. 
We need them in XML 2.0!

-- 
Robin Berjon *ducks*
   Research Scientist
   Expway, http://expway.com/

• References:
  • xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: David Lyon <david.lyon@c...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Toni Uusitalo <toni.uusitalo@p...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Karl Waclawek <karl@w...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Toni Uusitalo <toni.uusitalo@p...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Norman Walsh <ndw@n...>

• Prev by Date: RE: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Next by Date: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Previous by thread: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Next by thread: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread