Re: XML 1.0 and XML 1.1

Hi Liam,

Just speaking for myself, xinclude doesn't seem to do the job because xslt 
engines don't resolve xincludes, but they do resolve external entity 
references.  When I build 
As for deciding whether something falls in the original intent of XML or 
not, I would think that I've made the argument that decomposition by 
external entities was in the original intent of XML work, but has some 
problems now as time has passed, and you have made the argument that the 
original intent of XML was to name things with tags, but that has some 
problems now that time has passed.

Cheers,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM: Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com 

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer





Liam Quin <liam@w3.org> 
10/30/2007 11:02 AM

To
John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA
cc
public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Subject
Re: XML 1.0 and XML 1.1






I'm not Paul, and I'm not an XML Core WG participant,
but I'll answer wearing my XML Activity hat...

On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 10:44:53AM -0700, John Boyer wrote:
> The inclusion mechanism works to arbitrary depth, so why doesn't the
> corresponding declaration mechanism? Since the purpose of external
> entities is to provide decomposition of XML content, and the external
> entity itself is *defined* in terms of XML content, this is a
> language bug.

Or a language characteristic at least.

Does XInclude alleviate the desire for this feature?

Updating the set of name characters to be in line with
today's Unicode rather than with the Unicode of 1987/8 seems 
to me to fall within the intent of the original XML work,
and to be part of maintaining a specification; it doesn't
open the door to arbitrary changes, I'm afraid :-)

Regards,

Liam

XML Activity Lead, W3C

-- 
Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/ * http://www.fromoldbooks.org/