Re: Entity Ignorance

At 10:32 AM 1/29/97, Terry Allen wrote:
>And so did Tim Bray:
>>Sorry, Terry.  This was one of the single most debated points in the
>>whole XML process; the ERB reversed itself no less than twice, under
>>heavy (and justified) WG pressure.  Hit the archive and relive the joy
>>of debate.  I think this one is (a) not going to change and (b) the
>>correct decision. - Tim
>Then I'll just point out that 4.3.8 allows the entity to be
>ignored even when it has been served to the client, e.g.,
>when it's bundled with the main document.  Few sane publishers
>will find entities attractive in XML.

I was one of the proponents of the current decision, and I still think it's
correct, but Terry has a very valid point, that can perhaps be addressed
without changing the basic decision significantly. Can we change the
language to read something like the following:

"If the entity is an external text entity, and the processor is not
attempting to validate the XML document, the processor may, but need not
include the entity's content. [This is what we say currently, but we can
add a new requirement: ]. If the application, either cannot retrieve the
entity, or chooses not to do so, the application must indicate to the user
that data is missing, and (if possible) offer the oppotunity to fetch the
missing data."

I think the following explanation of why you'd rather not be _forced_ to
fetch everything, should be able to stand as-is.

  -- David (not arguing applications and authors rights)

I am not a number. I am an undefined character.
David Durand              dgd@cs.bu.edu  \  david@dynamicDiagrams.com
Boston University Computer Science        \  Sr. Analyst
http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/   \  Dynamic Diagrams
--------------------------------------------\  http://dynamicDiagrams.com/
MAPA: mapping for the WWW                    \__________________________