- From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 06:36:34 -0700
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> writes: >> efficiently. At the same time you've just turned off external subsets >> for all XML documents. > > Right. And I assert that they will not fix that. Period. Henri's > decision to close WONTFIX your bug on this issue is the clinching > proof, I believe. I'm not sure which bug you are referring to but I haven't any open that have been closed as WONTFIX. > >> Similarly, xml:id process becomes a pain in languages like XHTML where >> you already have an ID type attribute (i.e. "id") but that becomes >> solvable even if the processing is a bit hairy. > > Maybe we should drop that from the recommended profile as well, then. > I don't think that is necessary. >> >> I don't think of this as inflammatory but I do think there is still a >> problem. I think we still want XIncude in the "recommended profile >> for browsers". We don't have a profile that turns off external >> subsets and includes XInclude processing. > > Yes. I'm throwing the XInclude baby out with the external subset bath > water. I don't think the browsers are going to implement XInclude > either. They're allergic to "X" words, it's never going to be part of > HTML, and it's a little tricky to get all the fallback stuff right. > I think this is being overly pessimistic. -- --Alex Milowski "The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language considered." Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
Received on Thursday, 21 April 2011 13:37:20 UTC