[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
> 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
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.
"Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue