[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 12:12:40PM -0800, Heikki Toivonen wrote:
> > Whose semantic is hardcoded in a DTD that nearly no application
> >ever respected or used. Let's have a look of the alternatives in
> >XML:
> >
> > #foo
> >
> > Hard to rely on it with XML, well last time I suggested on this forum xml:id
> >I got a lot of flack back, I won't try again.
> > So either you accept to force validation of document (and hence
> >possibly have to fetch and trust remote DTD in your framework) or you
> >need other pointing schemes.
> >
> This isn't as hard as you'd think. You can have non-validating parser
> pay attention to ID type attributes.
>
> In some cases you may author your document so that it contains an
> internal subset specifying the ID type attributes.
Seriously I have yet to see a single document with an ID attribute
redefinition in the internal subset.
> Your application may also support some kind of catalog system (a la XML
> Catalog) so that it could load a local DTD file instead of a remote DTD.
This require prinstallation. It's a limited context, really ... I'm
fighting at the moment to have just the DocBook DTD and default
stylesheet registered in the XML Catalog of Linux distributions, and
it's not a done deal. Probability it would work on a random XML
fetched on the web is damn close to 0. Not reliable, and you want pointing
to be reliable
> Finally your application may have hardcoded support for some document
> types/schemas/namespaces, and may be able to recognize ID attributes
> because of that (take XHTML for example).
Hardcoded :-(
Let's not repeat the HTML disasters, thanks !
Daniel
--
Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
veillard@redhat.com | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
|
