Lists Home |
Date Index |
At 2002-10-15 10:51 -0400, Chris Wilper wrote:
>I am convinced that the concept of a DOCTYPE/PUBLICID
>identifying a doctype is needed...
Many people (myself include) already are convinced.
I think the last time this was discussed publicly was quite a while ago ...
from my records the thread begins here:
I cannot find the original XML SIG discussions where this was hotly debated.
>Is anyone working on defining something like this?
The idea of allowing a public identifier alone was shot down every time it
was brought up.
I don't think we'll ever see a public identifier allowed alone ... we will
always be required to supply a fallback system identifier. According to
XML 1.0 4.2.2 a processor may choose to use the public identifier first and
only if it fails need it use the fallback system identifier. For this
reason I don't think the issue of allowing it alone (which is what I think
you are asking for) need be debated again ... just use a processor that
respects the use of the public identifier (and whatever mechanism it
chooses to use for resolution of the public identifier) and you don't need
to change the definition of XML.
I hope this helps.
G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/x/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0 +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
ISBN 0-13-065196-6 Definitive XSLT and XPath
ISBN 0-13-140374-5 Definitive XSL-FO
ISBN 1-894049-08-X Practical Transformation Using XSLT and XPath
ISBN 1-894049-10-1 Practical Formatting Using XSL-FO
Next public training: 2002-12-08,2003-02-03,06,03-03,06