Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs
> 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). You can't easily put the full DTD in the internal subset (at least not by cut and paste) as it uses constructs not allowed there. If you declare all the ID attributes your local subset is unmanagebale, if you only declare the ones you need you have to keep editing that as you edit the document, which is hard to describe and hard to arrange in many editing interfaces. None of these problems is impossible to work round, but surely it is legitimate to ask if it's possible to set up the ground rules in a way that makes all of this easier to describe? David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.
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