[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] Re: determining ID-ness in XML
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> OK, one more time since people keep failing to hear this. I would
> never tell a bank that. If they don't want to change their DTDs,
> that's perfectly OK with me. They can stick with their existing
> documents and DTDs if these meet their needs. Nobody has to change if
> they don't want to.
What if they do want to but are not able to? I'm not being deliberately obtuse - I
just don't buy the idea that this is a simple matter of choice. You seem happy to
marginalise the largest and most complex XML implementations (since they'd be the
hardest to change) - I'm not satisfied that's the right thing to do. There's no
point in telling me over and over that they should just update the DTD. They can't.
> In this case, they don't get to use
> xml:id/xlink:label in their valid documents. That's fine. We are
> *not* trying to come up with a solution that works for those
> unwilling to make any change to what they're doing now. In fact, such
> a solution is impossible.
No it isn't - the use of a PI does exactly that. If they're able to use it, they
do. If they're not, they don't. Either way, nothing gets broken.
> You should also realize that whether we pick a processing
> instruction, an internal DTD subset, or just about anything else,
> none of this will work for organizations that are not willing to
> update their software and systems to take advantage of the new
> semantics of whatever is eventually defined, and that's OK too.
Sure, I realise that, but at least that offers them the chance to buy in.
Marcus Carr email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Allette Systems (Australia) www: http://www.allette.com.au
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."