Re: [xml-dev] So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.

[Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@propylon.com>]

At 11:42 10/11/2001 -0500, Jonathan Borden wrote:
>  Mike,
>
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@mediaone.net]
> > > Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 11:00 AM
> > > To: Champion, Mike; xml-dev@lists.xml.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
>in-band.

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 
and complex
         infoset.

         Write monolithic XML processing programs


regards,
Sean