W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: Argh...Entities

From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 19:14:37 -0400
Message-Id: <199905102311.TAA01044@hesketh.net>
To: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org, xml-dev <xml-dev@ic.ac.uk>
At 03:15 PM 5/10/99 -0500, Paul Prescod wrote:
>I am disappointed that the schema working group decided to extend SGML and
>XML's conflation of resource provision (entities) and document structure
>constraints. I would be glad to work on an XML instance-syntax resource
>provision specification if it would help you to split it off. I am already
>experimenting in that direction.

I agree with Paul 100% on this one.  For precisely this reason, DDML
remained entity free for a very long time (though I got outvoted on
unparsed entities in the end.) 

In my more recent project, XML Processing Description Language (XPDL), I've
separated constraints, entities, and attribute defaulting, and will be
adding notations to that list, from my list of parts.  (See
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/xpdl for details on XPDL.)

Do we really need to specify content in the same place as constraints?  I
really hope not.

Simon St.Laurent
XML: A Primer / Building XML Applications (June)
Sharing Bandwidth / Cookies
http://www.simonstl.com
Received on Monday, 10 May 1999 19:11:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:45 GMT