On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 08:58:55AM -0500, Norman Walsh wrote: > 1. Can we limit it to parse=text. I don't think so. If we refer > normatively to XInclude, we have to accept XInclude semantics.
Can't we somewhat put the parse attribute to #FIXED ? That would just subset the standard - would be easy to do with an architectural form (and I read somewhere that architectural forms apply to XML too). > [...] Is the existence of > XInclude a sufficiently strong motivator to provide the functionality > that way? It might be, given the semantic issues of encodings and such, > but I'm not sure. If it is, at least people using SGML would somewhat feel left behind I think :( > Right. But even that is tricky since DTDs and namespaces don't play > together terribly well. What about namespaces and schemas ? Wouldn't it be reasonable to switch from DTDs to schemas at some point ? This at least would be a motivation for me to leave SGML. But I don't want to be forced into XML DTDs. I have a DocBook-derived DTD that makes use of SGML features that were for some reason dropped from XML (namely, the "&" connector in content models). -- Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.alcove.com/ Free-Software Engineer Ing�nieur Logiciel-Libre Free-Software time manager Responsable du temps Informatique-Libre Debian GNU/Linux developper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
