[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] IDs considered harmful or why keys might bebetterthanIDs...
On Tue, 2001-11-13 at 08:33, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> > I think that perhaps you've misread my suggestion.
>
> No, I was using it to make a point roughly along the lines of "perfect is
> the enemy of good".
Heh. I think I'm claiming something more like "broken and obvious is
better than working and subtle", so we're likely talking past each
other.
> In our rush to 'move beyond' DTDs we sometimes neglect
> the lowly internal subset which _is_ instance data, so for example
> specifications like SOAP which are now stuck with the inability to have IDs
> (shrug).
I'm not sure I'm willing to describe the internal subset as instance
data, to be honest. To me it's metadata which is encapsulated inside
the document, basically a historical accident of the peculiar rights
given to non-validating parsers.
> Right. And since we have relatively good information that every SAX parser
> properly reports ID attributes _which are declared in the instance i.e. the
> internal subset_ I am not entirely sure that the need for another syntax to
> in-line declare identifiers is not syntax sugar (not that syntax sugar is
> sometimes useful).
Your syntax sugar is my gluten foundation, and vice-versa.
After years of meddling with XML interoperability and the lack of it, I
can't say that I've seen much evidence of the internal subset doing any
substantial good in these matters.
I'd rather do less so I can get on with doing more.
--
Simon St.Laurent
"Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue