"Dean Roddey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lots of encodings are standard encodings. If we had to hard code
> every one of the possible named character refs into the parser, it
> would be too much of a burden. It makes a lot more sense to have
> standard DTD fragments out there that define sets of them, and you
> just get them and include them into your DTD as required.
Good point,
Here's two reasons why it should be done:
1) Lots of encodings, but lots of people to write them up. Xerces is
open source, though, right? I'm sure that for each encoding Xerces
could find someone (or group) who cared enough to type it in (or
convert the DTD);
2) The DTD's distributed with linux are SGML DTD's, so they don't do
squat for my XML documents. I have to copy and paste the important
bits directly out of the ISO-8859.DTD and into my DTD. Sucks.
jas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
