[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Should nXML be included
From: |
Jason Rumney |
Subject: |
Re: Should nXML be included |
Date: |
Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:20:13 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) |
Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote:
> Validation of course loose most of its meanings, but not all.
> Completion can still be used.
The completion in nxml-mode is only as good as it is because the
validation tells it what is valid in that context. You can't have one
without the other. Like I said, as soon as you start trying to make nxml
a general SGML mode, you introduce compromises.
Multiple major mode support is a separate issue from nxml, and something
that should be addressed without imposing restrictions on specialized
major modes.
- Should nXML be included, Leo, 2007/06/11
- Re: Should nXML be included, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2007/06/12
- Re: Should nXML be included, Jason Rumney, 2007/06/12
- Re: Should nXML be included, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2007/06/12
- Re: Should nXML be included, Peter Heslin, 2007/06/12
- Re: Should nXML be included,
Jason Rumney <=
- Multiple major modes (was: Should nXML be included), Stefan Monnier, 2007/06/12
- Re: Multiple major modes, Leo, 2007/06/12
- Re: Multiple major modes, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2007/06/12
- Re[2]: Multiple major modes, Eric M. Ludlam, 2007/06/12
- Re: Multiple major modes, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2007/06/12
- Re: Multiple major modes, Stefan Monnier, 2007/06/12
- Re: Multiple major modes, Richard Stallman, 2007/06/13
- Re: Multiple major modes, Richard Stallman, 2007/06/13
- Re[2]: Multiple major modes, Eric M. Ludlam, 2007/06/19
- Re: Multiple major modes, Richard Stallman, 2007/06/24