Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Because ID is not the only one of these and at some point most of the common DTD defaults will be declared in the roots of documents and so are in effect, just the value pair aspects of the DTD inside the pointies. Say, xml:href, xml:src, etc. Is there a limit here? Yes, I understand Chris Lilley's post to the TAG list. I am asking the same question asked when the reserved XML namespace was proposed: where does it stop being a convenience and become THE way to declare the architecture? The exceptions made to enable consistent processsing but avoid DTDs in the name of well-formedness seem to invalidate the concept of well-formedness. Why not roll over and use the existing mechanisms? Given as you say that nearly all vocabularies need this is an admission that well-formedness is a limited notion based on a flawed understanding of how markup systems interoperate reliably. Admit that when one has to send or share semantically loaded information, one sends the DTD or schema. These exceptions are not "low hanging fruit" or "easy victories"; they are band aids. len From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@t...] Simon St.Laurent wrote: > While xml:id strikes me as a necessary evil, at this point I strongly > emphasize the necessary. As I move back into hypertext (what I came to > XML for in the first place), the need for a reliable ID mechanism seems > to override the protests that the internal DTD subset is adequate. I can sympathize with the xml:id idea, except for that every existing deployed XML vocabulary I've ever seen without exception has an ID attribute, and the name of the ID attribute is "id". Why not just roll over, give in, and say that absent other information, if "foo" is in XML then foo#bar means <any-namespace:any-tag id="bar">? -Tim
|
