& <.
?
Sent from my iPad (excuse the terseness)
David A Lee
On Jun 1, 2012, at 5:50 PM, "Michael Kay" <> wrote:
>
>> I couldn't even support such an idea in principle. For me, one of the cornerstones of XML's value is in completely determining the lexical space. I think leaving entity interpretation to applications would kick a huge hole in that.
>>
> Actually, it strikes me as quite an intelligent layering. If xinclude processing can be done in a different layer from XML parsing, why not entity expansion? In fact, it's strongly arguable that it SHOULD be a separate process; one of the use cases for entity expansion is to give a level of indirection so that the same entity reference can be replaced by different text at different places/times, and that works much better if it isn't embedded in the parser.
>
> But that raises the question of why a "MicroXML" standard should need entities at all. It can all be done with elements, and I thought the aim was to reduce the number of concepts?
>
> Michael Kay
> Saxonica
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
> to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
> spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
>
> [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
> Or unsubscribe:
> subscribe:
> List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
>
>
