• To: 'Bill Lindsey' <bill@b...>
• Subject: RE: Strategies for a lowly XML document
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 13:01:21 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

The DOCTYPE isn't unreliable.  The issue is extensiblity 
at the level of the instance of the declaration 
language.  They are of the same type; the type is 
extensible.  You can get a reliable answer from 
using the system identifier as long as what 
is at the other end of the locator is a singleton. 
That is why the DOCTYPE has both a PUBLIC and 
System ID and clearly separates these.  But yes, 
this is the issue John Cowan brought up about 
packaging the DTD with the document; only 
inspection enables one to know that no redefinitions 
have occurred.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Lindsey [mailto:bill@b...]

The internal subset can override parameter entities
and attribute declarations in the DTD.

So if I want to answer a question such as "are these
two documents of the same type?"  I'm not going
to get a very reliable answer from just the
DOCTYPE's public or system identifiers.  I'd also
need to compare canonicalizations of the internal
subsets.

• Prev by Date: Modeling relationships in XML
• Next by Date: Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Previous by thread: RE: Strategies for a lowly XML document
• Next by thread: RE: Strategies for a lowly XML document
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread