About templates

[Jelks Cabaniss]

Don Park wrote:

> I am now leaning very heavily toward focusing SML on XML fragments
> so that SML data (the word 'document' is not in the SML draft spec)
> starts with the 'content' production rule of the XML spec.  No
> prolog, no misc.  ...

What's interesting is that one of the major reasons for introducing "Namespaces"
was fragments,  yet Namespaces' complexity is the largest cause of this hubbub
over SML.

Take a look at Canonical XML <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n>.  Look at all how
*all* the constructs are represented, then compare all of them put together with
just how Namespaces alone are represented.

/Jelks




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 unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe 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)