document vs non-document entity (was Re: CORBA's not boring yet. / XML in an OS?)

[Paul Prescod]

james anderson wrote:
> 
> This raises the question: "What is the extent of an entity binding?"
> 
> Assume that is possible to qualify entity names. Since these qualifications
> are already lexically scoped, why would one need to introduce local entity
> definitions? The effective entity is already determined by a binding with a
> lexical scope.

The reason for local definitions is simple. Because of maintenance,
visibility and usability concerns it makes sense to have an entity
declaration as close as possible to the logical use of that declaration.
If a "chapter entity" is to be independently authored then its entity
declarations should travel with it. This is MUCH more convenient with
local entities.

> Opps! Yea, I forgot, there is no way to bind a prefix in the DTD (ie "the
> point of definition"). Got to wait for schemas for this.

I don't believe that entity declarations have any place in schemas. It
seems to me that the identification of resources is a separate issue from
the validation of structure.

-- 
 Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
 http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

"Remember, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did,
but she did it backwards and in high heels."
                                               --Faith Whittlesey

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)