• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: 13 Nov 2001 08:57:55 -0500
• In-reply-to: <000701c16c42$45841550$ddc469d5@pcukmka>
• References: <000701c16c42$45841550$ddc469d5@pcukmka>

On Tue, 2001-11-13 at 07:54, Michael Kay wrote:
>> Michael Kay wrote:
>>>> So why do we need _another_ mechanism to declare IDs?
>>> 
>>> Well, one reason is that an XML document produced as the output of an XSLT
>>> transformation will never have an internal subset.
>>
>> Maybe that should be fixed in XSLT, not in XML?
>>
> It would be easier to fix it in XSLT if it was first fixed in the InfoSet...

Ouch.  

Maybe it's time to abandon any notion of type specification, and just
stick to the small bit of information that can be gleaned from a
document instance minus DOCTYPE, even if it rules out certain
possibilities.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
"Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>

• References:
  • RE: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• Prev by Date: RE: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
• Next by Date: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
• Previous by thread: RE: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
• Next by thread: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread