Re: Argh...Entities

At 02:43 PM 5/11/99 -0500, Paul Prescod wrote:
>Noah_Mendelsohn/CAM/ wrote:
>> It's my impression that at least some of the editors share the
>> reservations expressed about various aspects of the entity mechanisms, and
>> are thus reluctant to perpetuate them as we did in the new design.  It
>> does appear that failing to do so would restrict one's ability to convert
>> arbitrary DTD's into equivalent schemas, and would entail a change of our
>> requirements document along with an associated change in the design.  So
>> it's a tradeoff, and I don't think we've finally settled which way to go.
>> Your opinions are much appreciated.
>Thanks for your message. I do think that the requirements should either be
>changed or interpreted as: "allow the expression of the same constraints
>as those expressed by DTDs."

Agreed.  If necessary, maybe you could move entities into their own
separate box, somewhat like has been done for data types.  I won't mind if
the W3C specifies a new way to provide the functionality that entities
provide today, but I'd very much like to see those capabilities separated
from the constraints end of schemas.  

Simon St.Laurent
XML: A Primer / Building XML Applications (June)
Sharing Bandwidth / Cookies

Received on Tuesday, 11 May 1999 16:16:16 UTC