[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
• From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 08:56:33 +0100
• References: <3BEF9991.9080102@d...><008f01c16b79$0bf75d20$0a2e249b@n...> <3BEFCC10.4010600@d...><00cc01c16bb6$2016f580$0a2e249b@n...> <3BF05116.3020208@r...><017101c16bd2$30bb25c0$0a2e249b@n...> <080201c16bd3$6691fec0$6800000a@b...> <01a101c16bd5$1435f0d0$0a2e249b@n...> <200111130020.AAA18334@p...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.5) Gecko/20011023

Arg!

David Carlisle wrote:

>>So why do we need _another_ mechanism to declare IDs?
>>
> 'cause if your document is docbook+mathml that's hundreds of elements
> all of which have an ID .
> 
> If you specify the full DTD in the external subset and then redeclare IDs
> in the internal subset some parsers will warn about duplicate declarations
> (its only a warning but standardising on something that parsers warn
> about seems odd) If you don't put the full DTD in the external subset
> your document isn't valid (which you might care about).
> 



John Cowan wrote:

> Some XML applications, like SOAP, have seen fit to ban them.
> 

Does that mean that we need to change the base (XML 1.0 + namespaces) 
because some DocBook or MathML users do not use it properly and SOAP has 
decided not to use one of the core features?

Looks like a slipery slope!

Eric (puzzled)
-- 
Rendez-vous à Paris pour le Forum XML.
                    http://www.technoforum.fr/Pages/forumXML01/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org      http://4xt.org           http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• References:
  • IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>
  • Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>
  • Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>
  • Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
  • Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>
  • Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
• Next by Date: RE: Caught napping!
• Previous by thread: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
• Next by thread: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread