[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: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
• Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 11:52:08 -0800
• Cc: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>,Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>,Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <87d5vazxrp.fsf@n...>
• References: <6.0.0.22.0.20050204222038.02251d70@p...> <20050204204803.GA31024@t...> <4203E349.9070803@k...> <cc159a4a0502041317af483be@m...> <4203E93A.1040302@k...> <87d5vazxrp.fsf@n...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041217

Norman Walsh wrote:
> 3. Something that works for a well-defined set of strings that can
>    be defined by some mechanism external to an individual document
>    but also inside a particular document. Something that has all
>    the features of general parsed entities.

One radical idea would be to define parseable entities in XML, in a 
separate entity namespace, using a simple first-definition-wins rule and 
XInclude for the external ones. I wonder why nobody's proposed that? Oh, 
wait, a number of people have proposed that. They just get slapped 
around here until they go away. ;-}

Bob Foster

> As I said, I don't think an XML 2.0 is worth pursuing if we select 0
> From this list.
> 
> I am concerned that 3 is going to be quite complex and highly
> controversial because just as there are large communities that *need*
> entities, there are large communities that have no need for them
> whatsoever.
> 
> The really hard, open question to my mind is, where's the 80/20 cut?
> Between 1 and 2 or between 2 and 3? (Possibly it's after 3, but my
> intuition says that it may not be.)
> 
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
> 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Norman Walsh <ndw@n...>

• 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: Norman Walsh <ndw@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: Where does the "nothing left but toolkits" myth come from?
• 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