[Kragen Sitaker]

Paul wrote:
> Kragen wrote:
> > 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 ?

Well, I think it's important to be able to include (a) < and & and (b)
characters outside my charset.

> > 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()  ;-)

Interesting idea.  But it would be just as hard to process as the
current ]]> kludge; what is the benefit?

> However, this suggestion kills compatibility with XML.

But not SGML :) :)

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

. . .but XML is a subset of SGML.


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)