[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
Michael Kay wrote:
>>So why do we need _another_ mechanism to declare IDs?
>>
>>
> Well, one reason is that an XML document produced as the output
> of an XSLT transformation will never have an internal subset.
Looks like a 3rd application to add to the list (after DocBook, MathML
and SOAP). If the list continues to grow, the question might become why
these applications have decided not to use (or to use in an invalid way)
internal subsets or full DTDs.
Eric
Eric van der Vlist wrote:
> Arg!
>
> David Carlisle wrote:
>
>
>>>So why do we need _another_ mechanism to declare IDs?
>>>
>>>
>>'cause if your document is docbook+mathml that's hundreds of elements
>>all of which have an ID .
>>
>>If you specify the full DTD in the external subset and then redeclare IDs
>>in the internal subset some parsers will warn about duplicate declarations
>>(its only a warning but standardising on something that parsers warn
>>about seems odd) If you don't put the full DTD in the external subset
>>your document isn't valid (which you might care about).
>>
>
> John Cowan wrote:
>
>>Some XML applications, like SOAP, have seen fit to ban them.
>>
> Does that mean that we need to change the base (XML 1.0 + namespaces)
> because some DocBook or MathML users do not use it properly and SOAP has
> decided not to use one of the core features?
>
> Looks like a slipery slope!
>
> Eric (puzzled)
>
--
Rendez-vous à Paris pour le Forum XML.
http://www.technoforum.fr/Pages/forumXML01/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org http://4xt.org http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------