- From: John G. Spragge <spragge@umich.edu>
- Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 00:54:49 -0400
- To: <www-dom@w3.org>
Jeff Mackay <jmackay@yahoo.com> wrote: > How about a real-world example that has nothing to do > with a DTD? Lets say I write a parser that processes > Active Server Pages. The syntax used to mark > server-side scripts is <% file://insert your script here > %>. The script marker nodes are custom node types. Help me out here; I unerstood from a lot of reading that XML (as opposed to HTML) had as its primary purpose the definition of a syntax which would facilitate the machine processing and generation of information. What exactly does your proposed extension do that you couldn't define an XML namespace to do? I have to admit the proposal to allow for extensions which allow things I thought the standard already allows for rather surprised me. > Still others might say that since they violate XML > syntax rules I can't create a new node type. I certainly have no objection; you can do anything you want (the great advantage of computers). I just don't see from what you wrote why you want to do what you describe, since as far as I can tell, XML already appears to define what you want as a basic feature. -- J. G. Spragge ---------- standard disclaimers apply Essays on capital punishment and network ethics at http://www-personal.umich.edu/~spragge
Received on Tuesday, 5 October 1999 00:55:26 UTC