• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 09:52:04 -0800

At 09:31 AM 01/11/01 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>  What we are actually 
>up against are the limits of well-formedness, so we are 
>starting to mix in validity requirements because we don't 
>like DTDs or schemas.  Nyet.

Giving something a unique address is arguably 100% 
orthogonal to validity.  The only reason we mix these two
up is that IDs were one of the many things that got 
thrown into the DTD basket by SGML. 

>  Propose the reason why 
>the standard means don't work 

The standard means - DTDs and schemas - are overwhelingly
concerned with validation.  This is a good and useful 
thing, but it in a considerable proportion of applications 
it is not applied at run-time.  And being able to find the
node to which a pointer applies is a function which can
exist entirely independent of validation.  QED. -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: determining ID-ness in XML
    • From: Jeff Rafter <jeffrafter@d...>

• References:
  • RE: Re: determining ID-ness in XML
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: ANNOUNCE: dom4j 1.1 released
• Next by Date: RE: Re: determining ID-ness in XML
• Previous by thread: RE: Re: determining ID-ness in XML
• Next by thread: Re: Re: determining ID-ness in XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread