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

Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be betterthanIDs.

• To: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>, jborden@m...
• Subject: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be betterthanIDs...
• From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 22:20:30 -0800
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• References: <3BEF9991.9080102@d...><008f01c16b79$0bf75d20$0a2e249b@n...> <3BEFCC10.4010600@d...><00cc01c16bb6$2016f580$0a2e249b@n...> <3BF05116.3020208@r...><017101c16bd2$30bb25c0$0a2e249b@n...><080201c16bd3$6691fec0$6800000a@b...><01a101c16bd5$1435f0d0$0a2e249b@n...><200111130020.AAA18334@p...>

> 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) 

... to me it's seemed odd to generate warnings _by default_ about
constructs that by definition are no problem.  Warn if the second
(ignored) declaration conflicts with the first one, sure -- there's a
chance that might actually indicate a problem.


> 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?

That might be the main reason to want "xml:id" or somesuch, rather than
copying ID attribute declarations into the internal subset.  But let's not
forget that the internal subset solution _does_ work except in the case
of folk who've adopted anti-DTD policies ... :)

- Dave

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be betterthanIDs...
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>

• References:
  • IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>
  • Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>
  • Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>
  • Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
  • Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>
  • Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>

• Prev by Date: [ANN] Online HTML to XML Conversion Service
• Next by Date: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
• Previous by thread: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be betterthanIDs...
• Next by thread: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be betterthanIDs...
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread