Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 12:00 9-11-2001, Jonathan Borden wrote: >The whole point of xml:id is for documents which are well-formed. All valid >XML documents are valid with respect to a DTD which can indicate IDs. > >Right, but there is no need to add xml:id to documents which are associated >with a DTD, the entire reason for existence is those XML documents without a >DTD. So yes, you can shoot yourself in the head, but doing so is not >recommended :-) OK - reality check. Am I the only one who likes to move back and forth between the valid and well-formed worlds? I like to have a DTD when I'm authoring but I see no need to inflict a DTD of (for example) DocBook's scope on a browser when I deliver a file. I would like to have my IDs remain IDs, however. I would like to provide just an internal subset, but there's still some software that tries to check validity when there's any DTD at all, and so an internal-subset-only setup fails. Yes, if their software could be changed to acknowledge ID PIs or xml:id, it could be changed not to screw up validation, but the PI solution feels more general and stays out of my naming area. If I could have two IDs on an element, then xml:id wouldn't be so bad, but I can't, so it is. ~Chris - -- Christopher R. Maden, Principal Consultant, HMM Consulting Int'l, Inc. DTDs/schemas - conversion - ebooks - publishing - Web - B2B - training <URL: http://www.hmmci.com/ > <URL: http://crism.maden.org/consulting/ > PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8 iQA/AwUBO+zsHqxS+CWv7FjaEQLL+ACdErOt2g4nuf1abELu6MnbWyKW9/UAmwY5 1i/uyTgUacQKmQx/uvjOoWr6 =38zK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
