something like this. But as Jirka, Eric, David and others have clearly
stated, an agreed-upon convention could hardly do harm. If EXSLT and SAX
end up on client checklists, said clients either have a specific use-case
scenario or a mental fog problem. How could a, say, "through this list"
agreed-upon PI do harm?
PS. Then again, I'm not PI-allergic. Indeed, some of us are dismayed that
(for example) for DTD-less ID recognition we're now going to be herded into
a hard-coded, goofy-looking "xml:id", intead of something like
<?xml:id-attrs po-num id cust-num?>
OK, *that* would probably require an "official" standard to go anywhere.
But with offical standards bodies steering us from the SGML jungle into an
xml:id straight-jacket, "offical" standards seem somewhat less enthralling
these days.
Apologies for the off-topic diatribe. Please add me to the list of
(non-official-standard) votes in favor.
PPS. When convention becomes dogma, you *may* end up with a problem.
There's (unforutnately) no known cure for this -- in XML or any other arena.
But when the convention is not endowed with a "theological" imprint, the
likelihood of such happening is at least significantly diminished.
/Jelks
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "rng-users" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
