[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: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• From: Liam Quin <liam@w...>
• Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 13:23:00 -0500
• In-reply-to: <6.0.0.22.0.20050204190356.022da168@p...>
• 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...>
• User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i

On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 07:10:33PM +0200, Toni Uusitalo wrote:
[...]
> 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 ;-)

One of the changes we made in moving from SGML to XML was in the way
that parameter entity substitution worked. We said that whitespace
was added at parameter entity boundaries. This and a number of other
constraints did reduce the sneaky macro-substitution tricks people
could play, but macro substitution is still at a syntactic, not a
semantic level, and that's always a problem when you start wanting
introspection, reasoning about documents, and processing XML files
with XML tools...

If we do go ahead and do future "XML 2.0" work -- and that's by
no means certain -- I can envision a "DTD module" being outside
the main core XML spec, and I can also envision DTD deletion, i.e.
a spec with no explicit document type definition at all.

Liam

-- 
Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/

http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/pictures/oldbooks/

• 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...>

• 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: Recommend A Java-XML Forum [T2005020200F1]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread