Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Bob Hutchinson wrote > > I am going to suggest that the id's listed in the <?xml-typeinfo?> > should be unioned with the currently in-force set of ids. > I presume you are advocating unioning the IDs from the DTD with those created by a <?xml-typeinfo?> PI. A number of people have voiced concern about what happens when the PI (or xml:id) contradicts or conflicts with the DTD. As Elliotte has pointed out, we only need xml:id in the absence of a DTD, so why don't we say that xml:id (or <?xml-typeinfo?>) only takes effect in the absence of a DTD? Perhaps this is too simplistic, because some xml instances may well make use of an internal subset to declare entities. Perhaps a more refined suggestion would be "use xml-typeinfo only when there is no ATTLIST for the given element". Hey, we could even add a validation warning to check that xml-typeinfo information agrees with the DTD when xml instances are validated. p.s. Even though I'm advocating <?xml-typeinfo?> as the solution, I agree with Len that we haven't really defined the problem ;-) ~Rob
|
