Paul Tchistopolskii paul at
Mon Nov 22 23:02:37 GMT 1999

> I think it would be very nice, from a processing point of view, to have
> an XML variant that didn't have CDATA sections or DTDs (although entity
> definitions are useful!).  

1. Why entities should live in the core, if one can use  
any macroprocessor to get  *more*  flexible functionality?

2. How often do we need entities outside the DTD's ?

> I suspect CDATA sections are hard to live
> without if you're writing XML documents about HTML or XML, though.

Let us have <CDATA> element ? I think up to 3-5 elements with 
'hardcoded' semantics will not cause a big problem.

I think it is not  a big problem in traditional languages 
to use reserved keywords to avoid function names like 
for() or if()  ;-)

However, this suggestion kills compatibility with XML.

It's why I think that SML vs XML is very similiar to 

At some point it would be easier to break the 
compatibility than to support legacy. As far as I 
understand, exactly that thing happened with 

However, because usualy that CDATA  is all 
about turning < >    into &lt; and &gt;  it may be OK  
to live without CDATA at all - we *already*  have 
similiar problems with XML ;-)

Rgds. Paul.

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

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list