[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: revised restatement of the RE rules



> 
> Since we're having such difficulty with RS/RE, I propose declaring that they do 
> not exist. If XML doesn't specify records, then there are no special rules to 
> deal with their starting and ending points - end of problem. RS and RE are 
> anachronisms and are not necessary to specify a markup language.
> 
> What are the errors/problems with this approach? I recognize that 8879 
> compatibility may be lost but what else is wrong? I'm looking for substantive 
> technical issues with David Durand's "one record proposal".

Okay, Let's say I'm Jane WebMeister.

Does the "one record proposal" mean that this:

<TABLE>
<TR><TD>1</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>4</TD></TR>
<TR><TD>1</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>4</TD></TR>
<TR><TD>1</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>4</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

Is going to generate a parse tree with many newlines in it, which will 
probably choke a parser that _does_ use a DTD, because <TABLE> is element
content?

If so, I far prefer the quoted-delimeter proposal that removes the RS/RE
without sacrificing the author's ability to reorganize their XML source
using whitespace.

 Paul Prescod


References: