[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: hackable xml
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:08:24 +0100, Andrew Welch wrote: > 2. Entity refs no longer exist, other than the inbuilt ones. There is > no DTD. (numeric refs remain) If the inbuilt ones exist, why: > 5. Lone inbuilt entites such as "&" in the lexical XML are > automatically parsed as & and not an error (#2 above might enable > this). Same goes for a lone "<". And what does 'lone "<"' mean, anyway? <element name="example">if (A < B) && (B > C) {...}</element Abandoning well-formedness in the name of simplicity is almost certainly the wrong approach to take. Without CDATA and entities, how do I supply an example of this syntax in the syntax? <![CDATA[Encode & as &]] and < as <> [xml variant 1] == "Encode & as &amp; and < as &lt;" [xml variant 2] == "Encode & as &amp; and < as &lt;" [consequence of making & == & in this definition?] That's not simpler, that's more complex, and in theory more forgiving of "common errors". > 3. PIs, CDATA sections gone No stylesheets. > 4. Encoding must be UTF-8 (or some similar rule: its to remove the > potential mismatch between the encoding in the prolog and the actual > encoding) " " Oh, hell, let's just make 'em all use ASCII, why not? > been involved with. I have never, ever, seen 2 prefixes with > different namespaces in the same document. There is no need to map a Heh. I have, often enough. > prefix to a namespace, the prefix provides all the uniqueness > necessary within a domain, global uniqueness isn't needed. This would ? So, how big is the domain? > to make it "hackable" by the masses, keeping mixed content and > attributes, the reason why you would use xml in the first place. Is it? > The need is there - is there a reason why this can't be done? Based on the above, I don't think you're going to build momentum. What you want and what I want, for instance, seem to be rather different (I'd like to see a less baroque "namespaces in XML", and XML entity definition without DTDs; abandoning well-formedness constraints strikes me as a bad idea introducing too much ambiguity; removing choice of encoding is equally wrong-headed, I believe, and making XPath simpler won't help if the common host languages for XPath are no longer referenceable via standard mechanisms such as a stylesheet PI). Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis amyzing {at} talsever.com Do you ever feel like putting your fist through a window just so you can feel something?
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|