Re: Shorthand for default attributes (was: Re: Whitespace)

>  > Yes, but it creates unbounded linear dependencies, forcing the parsing of
>  > an entire document from the beginning, with all entitiy references
>  > resolved. A State-independent solution allows "lazy" entity parsing, and
>  > re-use of partial documents as well-formed XML fragments.
> 
> True, in the worst case, but there are several arguments why this is
> not a big problem:
> 
>   - The vast majority of documents is small, on the Web that is even
>     more true than elsewhere.

Not true! Most HTML *files* are small. There are many massive documents on
the Web that are broken into non-intuitive, hard to use chunks because the
Web is massively optimized for small documents instead of for retrieving
small parts of large documents. *WE MUST NOT PERPETUATE THIS MISTAKE*.

>   - You can arbitrarily limit namespaces by putting a !doctype
>     somewhere. 

Then you introduce many OTHER namespace problems like IDs, entities etc.

> I agree with you there, but there is a fallacy in calling them "PIs",
> since PIs are a term from SGML, and in SGML they are not targeted at
> SGML parsers, but at the applications built on top of the parsers.
> 
> You're defining XML, you need a widget to define something that is
> common to, and obligatory for all XML parsers. You can use whatever
> syntax you like. Who cares whether it looks like SGML or not?

Please see:  http://www.textuality.com/sgml-erb/dd-1996-0001.html

These are our goals and I feel that it is too late to change them. XML would
be a very different language if SGML compatibility were not an important
goal.

 Paul Prescod

Received on Wednesday, 14 May 1997 15:59:11 UTC