• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:08:41 -0600

But there is an architectural solution now.  Some don't like it 
and yes, this is an architecture thread, so perhaps "selling" 
can wait for another thread.  (See self-fulfilling prophecies). 

What are the architectural objections to #1?

The more semantically-loaded strings we add to well-formedness, 
the more XML processors become RTF processors and that feels 
retro.  Will the semantic escape always be xml:yadda?

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@t...]

At 08:40 AM 29/10/01 -0600, Paul Grosso wrote:
>Here are some options (all discussed before):
>1.  use the internal subset to declare IDs

#1 is minimal-impact.  Can it be sold?  I.e., if you
want the "name" attr to be an ID, then you need the following
at the top of the file with a line for each element type
that "name" can appear on:

<!DOCTYPE rootType [
 <!ATTLIST element1 name ID #IMPLIED>
 <!ATTLIST element2 name ID #IMPLIED>
 ... etc...
]>

I'm not sure it's going to be easy to get the community to
buy into this.

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: determining ID-ness in XML
• Next by Date: Re: Re: determining ID-ness in XML
• Previous by thread: RE: Re: determining ID-ness in XML
• Next by thread: RE: Re: determining ID-ness in XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread