Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Options in XML 1.0
 Simon St.Laurent wrote: > > I'm not denying that these things are useful in certain cases, but I'm > questioning whether the way they are implemented in XML 1.0 is sensible > and/or safe. I have no problem with 'pre-validation transformation', > provided that it takes place in a clearly demarcated processing space and > isn't jumbled with basic XML document reading. > Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on your perspective, XML 1.0 is already specified and has been so for some time now. Like it or not DTDs are a part of XML 1.0. Perhaps not XML 2.0, but I am not writing standards that specify XML 2.0 yet, and until I can compare (the theoretical) XML 2.0 against the current XML 1.0 specification I can't make that distinction. So like it or not, XML 1.0 specifies the procedure by which attributes are defaulted in an internal subset and leaves parsing of the external subset optional. It is true that depending on how a non-validating parser is implemented, the same XML 1.0 document will produce different groves or infosets. Many sensible people prefer that a non-validating parser produce the same grove or infoset as a validating parser and I for one would not use a parser that did not produce the infoset I was expecting or changed the infoset depending on whether the validation option is turned on or off. Unfortunately for your position, part of the pre-validation transformation that may occur during the parse phase (i.e. PE substitutions and attribute defaulting) may indeed be 'jumbled with basic XML document reading' but this is a well known and frequently used feature of XML 1.0. XML 1.0 conformant parsers must support this. I agree with David Megginson as it was important that the subsetting of SGML to form XML was associated with a distinct name change (XML), that any subsetting of XML also be associated with a distinct name change. For example CML or SML is less confusing than Common XML or Simple XML and as with SGML and XML there is indeed no reason not to support even more simple markup languages. What is important is that we all agree on what XML 1.0 is, and given its precise specification I think there is precious little room for argument regarding this. Jonathan Borden The Open Healthcare Group http://www.openhealth.org 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
