I don't think you can expect a coherent response from a diverse group of
people on a family of features. Also, the former statement is ridiculous
and the latter actually implies that the WG is divided on the issue.
There is a third way to read the situation: the optionality of the
features works to reassure people that XML processing is simple, but the
usefulness of them will encourage users to request them. (idea: one easy
way to encourage vendors to implement them is to depend upon them in
XLL) For instance XLL depends on ID/IDREF.
My personal feeling is:
> external text entities,
Absolutely vital. Expansion should be expected of all processors.
XML-DEV members should apply pressure on processor vendors to handle
this, despite the laxity of the PR.
> NDATA entities,
I suspect that the web market will be more amenable to embedded URLs.
> notations,
MIME/HTTP can handle this.
> ID/IDREF
Others seem to prefer to push this onto the application side. I don't
feel strongly enough about it to argue with them. It is clearly a
semantic restriction and there are various reasons that those are often
better handled on the application side.
Paul Prescod
-- "You have the wrong number." "Eh? Isn't that the Odeon?" "No, this is the Great Theater of Life. Admission is free, but the taxation is mortal. You come when you can, and leave when you must. The show is continuous. Good-night." -- Robertson Davies, "The Cunning Man"
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)