[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] Re: determining ID-ness in XML
- From: "Christopher R. Maden" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 18:00:40 -0800
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
At 06:41 1-11-2001, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>What would result from the reverse solution: a document which
>is subject to a raw XPointer must have a DTD or Schema?
As Daniel noted, that's already the case. The problem, however, is that
even if I have a DTD, there is no guarantee that the receiving system is
going to pay any attention to it, and so I don't know if my XPointers are
going to work or not. That's scary.
XML processors are required to acknowledge ID declarations in the internal
subset[*], but that has been declared infeasible because SOAP (for whatever
reason) forbids internal subsets. It's also a maintenance pain since the
ID-ness of an attribute is really a feature of the document type, and
properly belongs with the rest of the document type definition, but some
over-zealous validation systems will issue warnings about the duplicate
declarations. (For a while, MSXML would halt because an element type can
only have one attribute of type ID - never mind that the two attributes had
the same name, as well.)
I like the PI solution. It's redundant with the DTD information, doesn't
change the structure or naming of my documents at all, but can pass
information on to systems that don't read the DTD without my having to muck
about with an internal subset.
[*] Modulo restrictions on external parameter entities.
Christopher R. Maden, Principal Consultant, HMM Consulting Int'l, Inc.
DTDs/schemas - conversion - ebooks - publishing - Web - B2B - training
<URL: http://www.hmmci.com/ > <URL: http://crism.maden.org/consulting/ >
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----