[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
At 11:42 10/11/2001 -0500, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:email@example.com]
> > > Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 11:00 AM
> > > To: Champion, Mike; firstname.lastname@example.org
> > > Subject: Re: [xml-dev] So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
> > >
> > > so what am I missing?
> > Maybe nothing, except my wistful hope that we really can do this kind of
> > thing with WF XML syntax rather than DTD syntax someday...
>I know what you are getting at, but want to remind people that "well-formed
>XML" _includes_ the internal DTD subset and hence all of this can be done
Yes it can be expressed in WF XML, but internal subset stuff disappears
to Tumbolia in XML processing chain/workflows.
Four alternatives I see:
Don't use internal subsets
Use internal subsets and live with the fact they they don't
survive processing pipelines
Make the internal subsets round-trip by using a sufficiently rich
Write monolithic XML processing programs