[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] Re: determining ID-ness in XML
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Christopher R. Maden" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 08:18:27 -0600
Yes that is the case. SOAP refusing to acknowledge it
is a W3C problem. They don't have the authority or perhaps
the will to make their own specifications interoperable
and well, so much for their standards.
The PI solution is the least impact solution so far. Where
one comes down on this seems to depend on how one thinks
the system or processor vocabulary should be extended and
what an XML processor must enforce. Again, means have always
been there and by the circular logic that seems to pervade
the W3C thinking, people are free to ignore those means.
So we add PIs. They can ignore those too. So we add
more system vocabulary attributes; they can ignore those
too. Will we need Congress to legislate this stuff too?
The bizarreness of this to me Chris, is that these are
well known issues of hypermedia regardless of the notation.
From: Christopher R. Maden [mailto:email@example.com]
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.