Re: [xml-dev] Re: determining ID-ness in XML

["Christopher R. Maden" <crism@maden.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

At 12:00 9-11-2001, Jonathan Borden wrote:
>The whole point of xml:id is for documents which are well-formed. All valid
>XML documents are valid with respect to a DTD which can indicate IDs.
>
>Right, but there is no need to add xml:id to documents which are associated
>with a DTD, the entire reason for existence is those XML documents without a
>DTD. So yes, you can shoot yourself in the head, but doing so is not
>recommended :-)

OK - reality check.  Am I the only one who likes to move back and forth 
between the valid and well-formed worlds?

I like to have a DTD when I'm authoring but I see no need to inflict a DTD 
of (for example) DocBook's scope on a browser when I deliver a file.  I 
would like to have my IDs remain IDs, however.  I would like to provide 
just an internal subset, but there's still some software that tries to 
check validity when there's any DTD at all, and so an internal-subset-only 
setup fails.

Yes, if their software could be changed to acknowledge ID PIs or xml:id, it 
could be changed not to screw up validation, but the PI solution feels more 
general and stays out of my naming area.  If I could have two IDs on an 
element, then xml:id wouldn't be so bad, but I can't, so it is.

~Chris
- -- 
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

iQA/AwUBO+zsHqxS+CWv7FjaEQLL+ACdErOt2g4nuf1abELu6MnbWyKW9/UAmwY5
1i/uyTgUacQKmQx/uvjOoWr6
=38zK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----