- From: Laurence Penney <lorp@lorp.org>
- Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 23:48:04 +0100
- To: liam@w3.org
- Cc: James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>, www-font@w3.org, 3668 FONT <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
Liam, Are you saying you support, in principle, the idea of a vast and complex raw XML document (ok, maybe without the <?xml ... ?>) as the value of a key-value pair? - L On 19 Jun 2010, at 23:19, Liam R E Quin wrote: > On Sat, 2010-06-19 at 22:37 +0100, Laurence Penney wrote: >> Could you point to where these restrictions are listed? If you're >> talking about Ruby markup (or any angle-bracket markup), then I'm not >> sure why such markup would not be encoded with < and > and >> quotes as entities - whether <bar>text</bar> or <foo bar="text"/> > > I'll reply just in case you're seriously suggesting such an ugly > hack :-) > > It's not a good idea because you can't then process the markup > with XSLT or XQuery, or edit it with an XML-aware editor, or mark > the name and value as being in separate languages, or use ITS to > mark a particular name or value os "do not translate". > > <item> > <name>Socks</name> > <value>black</value> > </item> > > is preferred over > <item name="Socks" value="black" /> > > HTML and RSS are not good examples to follow in this regard... > > Liam > > -- > Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ > Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ > Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org www.advogato.org > >
Received on Saturday, 19 June 2010 22:48:43 UTC