Cart
|
[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 better thanIDs
 David Carlisle wrote: >... The reasons why the ID attributes which are in the DTD > need to be redeclared in an internal subset, and in fact what an > internal subset is, are things that one shouldn't ever have to know ... Why would one need to redeclare an ID in the internal subset which is already declared in the external DTD. Its already an ID right? Again, my point about using internal declarations of IDs is for documents which don't have an external DTD. If you are using an external DTD you can always declare a short DTD driver which [expletive deleted] in docbook+mathml + whatever and defines the new IDs your particular application desires. The point being that if you are declaring an ID _and_ going to the trouble to validate in the first place, then you probably want to be sure the ID is really an ID ... i.e. that the validating software (e.g. validating XML parser) processes it. Having _two_ mechanisms to define IDs by disparate techniques would mean rewriting every validating XML parser to understand that _xml:id_ or _xml:idatts_ or whatever means. Since we are going to have to deploy _some_ new type of software which understands and implements _xml:id_ or whatever, and perhaps rewrite _every_ XSLT and DOM implementation so that it understands the new behavior of id() and getElementById() (!!!) it would seem far easier to fix XSLT so that it can properly handle internal subsets (i.e. write them as well as read them). Jonathan 
|
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
|
|||||||||
