[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] XML is broken (was Re: Why Doesn't IE5 use the DTD to Validate?)
At 08:20 AM 4/2/99 +0700, James Clark wrote on XSL-list: >So what is this switch? The DOCTYPE declaration? The DOCTYPE >declaration unless it's just an internal subset containing entity >declarations? What if I have default attributes declared as well? What >if I have so many entities that I use an external subset instead? Where >does the XML spec mention such a switch? > >I know Microsoft-bashing is good, clean fun, but actually they've done >the right thing here. Well, if IE 5 isn't broken, maybe it's time to consider (and discuss) whether the XML spec isn't broken, and badly. Validation is something that happens or it doesn't, depending on the whim of the application. Reading external resources is something that happens or it doesn't, again depending on the whim of the application. (That whim is slightly constrained by requiring validating parsers to read external resources.) Namespace support is something that happens or it doesn't at the whim of the application, and interactions with validation depend on another set of whims. On top of that, documents are free to identify themselves with any DTD they like and then create their own world in the internal subset. Is this really worth bothering with? After writing four books discussing the subject, I have to wonder more and more if validation and all the tools surrounding it aren't simply too broken to be useful. Validation as concept is great - applications can hand off certain types of processing to components, and everyone uses the same set of tools (schemas/DTDs) to describe what's supposed to be in those documents. Unfortunately, validation as implemented in XML is a painful joke: underpowered (no data typing), overpowered (attribute defaulting is a great idea, but doesn't always work in a nonvalidating environment), complicated (internal/external subset issues, not to mention IGNORE/INCLUDE), not reliable (since applications may or may not bother, and documents can change the rules anytime anyway), not constrained by 'industry practice' (since there isn't any consensus), and subject to a lot of intricate rules that take a long time to master. A better validation approach would: * Not interfere with well-formed documents (attribute defaulting done different) * Provide a simple mechanism for documents to identify their type, not all the details about their their structure. * Be reliable. Applications could control how documents are validated, instead of relying on the document to provide them with a roadmap. * Describe more than just text and elements. * Allow supporting tools (like XSL and XLink, which benefit greatly from a validating environment) to demand validation of documents against schemas before attempting processing. The current solution is an enormous mess, one that threatens to make validation a useless discard. I've complained about this to some extent previously (in the Layered Model document, and on XML-dev), but it's becoming a sorer point every time I encounter it, which happens pretty regularly. Maybe the schemas group can fix this, or maybe we should just chuck the declaration end of XML entirely. Simon St.Laurent XML: A Primer Sharing Bandwidth / Cookies http://www.simonstl.com xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
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
|