Implementations not specifications are the problem was Re: [xml-dev] IDs considered harmful

["Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>]

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
IDs
> >(shrug).
>
> 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[1] :-)
>
> 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 ([2])
>
> "(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?

James:

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?



Jonathan