- From: Paul Grosso <paul@arbortext.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 13:02:39 -0500
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 09:19 1997 05 28 -0700, Tim Bray wrote: >I'm now putting PE reference handling in Lark, and it's turning into >quite a lot of code - since these things are just for DTD's, and Lark >is nonvalidating anyhow, I'm wondering if the extra processing and code >size required are in the spirit of XML, particularly for lightweight >standalone processing. It seems like PE's are largely in the spec to >support authoring-end activities. > >Would it be reasonable to think about saying either that >(a) PErefs should not be used in the internal DTD subset, or >(b) PErefs should not be used in WF docs? I, for one, am getting the uneasy feeling that XML is starting to suffer from "over-indulging": it's putting on too much weight. Of course, everyone wants it to be powerful enough to solve his/her problem, but then it risks being too big to be the ubiquitous solution we want it to be. (I had the same feeling with various SGML Open technical resolutions: I started out thinking something simple would give us a good cost/benefit ratio, and then features kept getting added until I feared we were reducing the chance of having it widely implemented.) I say this not from an implementor's point of view, but as one who just wants XML to succeed: SGML and HyTime "do it all" but get stuck in a small niche, and HTML grabs at a very small part of the problem, but pulls in a huge market. I'm beginning to lean (even more so that I may have at first) toward trimming what we can. Though I reserve the right to be convinced otherwise, I would currently support ideas to simplify XML by restricting the use of PErefs. paul
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 1997 14:06:26 UTC