- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:28:17 +0100
- To: murray@muzmo.com
- Cc: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
murray writes:
> Alas and alack, some XML processors, such as GRDDL, do not agree. I
> think that we should present at least those two views of infoset
> construction. Could one of you please explain why not?
If GRDDL forbids entity expansion, that's just wrong, I missed it at
the time or I would have objected. So I would say, GRDDL should use
the now-defined minProfile, which doesn't do XInclude.
ht
- --
Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFLxglBkjnJixAXWBoRAqf9AJ97cQUeZ/CwFlEceqldPehtNIS1QwCdHDk1
Idr6uHhPs+qsrCFXMLZk6+U=
=/jE5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2010 18:29:10 UTC