[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
On Tuesday 13 November 2001 08:52 am, John Cowan wrote: > > (B) The other choice we can make is to say that ID-ness is important. > > I agree with this view, and on primarily data-centric grounds. Without > IDs, XML can only serialize trees. With IDs, it can serialize > arbitrary graphs in a fairly application-independent way, at least > within a single document. This is often an important facility. > > > The only solution that I've seen that works with choice (B) > > is xml:idatt(s). > > I agree. XML itself doesn't do anything with graphs, even with ID/IDREF pairs, beyond simple validation of constraints. As such I have to disagree with your assertion that "Without ID's, XML can only serialize trees" and put it down to FUD. If I have a document: <doc> <p>Some text goes here.<anchor name="bar"/></p> <p>Some more text goes here.<link name="bar"/></p> </doc> have I defined a graph or a tree? How do you know? How does the XML processor know? If I changed this to declare the "name" attributes as CDATA, does it change? How about if I define them as ID/IDREF?
|
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
|