[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: what's missing in XML? What's coming?

• From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
• To: liam@w3.org
• Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 10:28:58 +0000

On 02/01/2012 17:48, Liam R E Quin wrote:

>> Preferably, build the default mappings of the entities into XML.

> It's interesting that I haven't seen any comments along these lines
> from the MathML WG.

yes you have:-) we even turned up in person to an xml f2f meeting (at a
TPAC prior to what became xml 1.1 in the end) asking for use of entity
names in fragments without an explicit doctype to be well formed in xml 2.

Given the situation now, I wouldn't change xml handling in
application/xml, but I would change it in application/xhtml+xml which is
currently completely broken: it's not possible (without severely abusing
FPI identifiers) to have a file that is served with that mime type that
is both valid according to the xml tool chain and well formed according
to the xml parsers used by browsers supporting html5 if entity
references are used.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-xml/2011Dec/0019.html

David





________________________________________________________________________
The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England
and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is:
Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom.

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is
powered by MessageLabs. 
________________________________________________________________________

• References:
  • Re: what's missing in XML? What's coming?
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>
  • Re: what's missing in XML? What's coming?
    • From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>