[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: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
• Subject: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• From: Norman Walsh <ndw@n...>
• Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:22:33 -0500
• Cc: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>, Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>, Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <42091868.9020406@o...>
• References: <6.0.0.22.0.20050204222038.02251d70@p...><20050204204803.GA31024@t...> <4203E349.9070803@k...><cc159a4a0502041317af483be@m...> <4203E93A.1040302@k...><87d5vazxrp.fsf@n...> <42091868.9020406@o...>
• User-agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)

/ Bob Foster <bob@o...> was heard to say:
| 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. ;-}

That may be the right answer, if we have to go that far, but it's not
without complications that would need to be addressed. For one thing,
how would these extra elements interact with validity assessment? For
another, would you allow the declarations to be scoped? If yes, then
that must be first declaration in scope. If not, how do you deal with
transclusion? Are the entity references manifest in the parsed document?
Do they survive parsing and re-seralization? Etc.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@n...> | Vision is the art of seeing things
http://nwalsh.com/            | invisible.-- Swift

PGP signature

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>

• 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...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>

• Prev by Date: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Next by Date: Is the Web Stochastic? (WAS 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