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

Re: canonicalization

• To: Marcus Carr <mcarr@a...>
• Subject: Re: canonicalization
• From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>
• Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:20:40 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <3C840230.9E8C239C@a...>; from mcarr@a... on Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 10:24:32AM +1100
• References: <1015178176.5268.43.camel@l...> <p04330104b8a8106aa395@[192.168.254.4]> <1015193078.3350.61.camel@l...> <p04330107b8a85bc15730@[192.168.254.4]> <1015201142.3309.108.camel@l...> <3C82B747.5020609@t...> <20020304025635.C18835@r...> <3C832B1E.2D941BB6@a...> <20020304043305.D18835@r...> <3C840230.9E8C239C@a...>
• Reply-to: veillard@r...
• User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i

On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 10:24:32AM +1100, Marcus Carr wrote:
> 
> Daniel Veillard wrote:
> 
> > Consider a large doc splitted into chapter. The resulting document
> > is built with XInclude. Each subdocument can contain a DOCTYPE and
> > be validated independantly.
> 
> Doing this with entities, I'd generate a document comprised of entity
> references, and create the subdocuments with DOCTYPEs. I'd validate the
> subdocuments independantly, creating the files that matched my entity
> references. I understand that with XInclude I could use the subdocuments
> directly (after validation) rather than first generating an output file
> (without DOCTYPE) from each subdocument - is that the only gain in this
> scenario?

  That's the gain. You don't have tro try to trim the DOCTYPe or internal
subset to do further processing.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
veillard@r...  | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/

• References:
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Marcus Carr <mcarr@a...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Marcus Carr <mcarr@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XML should NOT be a new programming language
• Next by Date: Re: canonicalization
• Previous by thread: Re: canonicalization
• Next by thread: Re: canonicalization
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread