[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Implementations not specifications are the problem was Re: [xml-dev] IDs considered harmful
Sean McGrath wrote:
> [Jonathon Borden]
> >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
> The case against internal subsets is compelling IMHO. They don't round
> trip. This creates significant problems for software developers
> working with hetrogenous, loosely coupled XML processing
> systems. i.e. anything other than XML "viewers".
> I have droned on about this for years now and
> will spare everyone a replay :-)
> I believe (correct me if I'm wrong James) that James Clark
> is referring to this problem when he says of the internal
> subset approach to this problem ()
> "(iii) It doesn't work with streaming output. This is in my view the most
> important technical problem"
Err, so wouldn't it be easier to fix the streaming output systems (I believe
Xalan already implements the SAX DeclHandler interface on its default output
handler) than to:
1) Create an entirely new specification
2) Update every XML parser and XPath and DOM implementation
3) Deploy the new implementions
The problem is in _implementations_ not _specifications_.
Perhaps I am missing something?
On the other hand I _do_ think there is value in 'moving beyond' DTDs to XML
syntax schemas. Since you are working with RELAXNG, rather than propose
_xml:atts_ which is a partial solution to the problem, will you include the
_xml:atts_ proposal as a part of RELAXNG in some fashion?