[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: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@g...>
• Subject: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• From: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>
• Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 02:47:28 -0500
• Cc: rob@k..., peter.hunsberger@g..., xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <6fa681b1050206221978c61a49@m...>
• Organization: The Mysthical World of Talsever!
• References: <6.0.0.22.0.20050204222038.02251d70@p...><20050204204803.GA31024@t...><4203E349.9070803@k...><cc159a4a0502041317af483be@m...><4203E93A.1040302@k...><6fa681b1050206221978c61a49@m...>

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:19:16 -0800
Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@g...> wrote:
> The single area where this does prove problematic is in character
> references.

Umm.  It would be nice if the mechanism could handle the (relatively
common, in my experience) case of URLs in attribute context.  Or any
"xinclude-ish" string content in attribute context.

> Even there, if you permit entities, I still think that
> their declaration should be something handled as angle-bracket XML:

Agreed.  This could actually work for more than just character entities,
but can't now because the XML 1.0 specification restricts entity
definition to DTDs.  So it goes.

> In this case, entities would be limited ONLY to character entities in
> XML 2.0.  

Rotten idea, as far as I'm concerned.  I could see limiting them to
simple content (that is, content that may appear in attribute values).

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis                    amyzing {at} talsever.com
"How does one hate a country, or love one? ... What is love of one's
country; is it hate of one's uncountry? Then it's not a good thing. Is
it simply self-love? That's a good thing, but one mustn't make a virtue
of it, or a profession."
                -- Therem Harth rem ir Estraven

• References:
  • 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: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@g...>

• Prev by Date: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Where does the "nothing left but toolkits" myth come from?
• 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