Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Tue, 2001-11-13 at 08:33, Jonathan Borden wrote: > > I think that perhaps you've misread my suggestion. > > No, I was using it to make a point roughly along the lines of "perfect is > the enemy of good". Heh. I think I'm claiming something more like "broken and obvious is better than working and subtle", so we're likely talking past each other. > In our rush to 'move beyond' DTDs we sometimes neglect > the lowly internal subset which _is_ instance data, so for example > specifications like SOAP which are now stuck with the inability to have IDs > (shrug). I'm not sure I'm willing to describe the internal subset as instance data, to be honest. To me it's metadata which is encapsulated inside the document, basically a historical accident of the peculiar rights given to non-validating parsers. > Right. And since we have relatively good information that every SAX parser > properly reports ID attributes _which are declared in the instance i.e. the > internal subset_ I am not entirely sure that the need for another syntax to > in-line declare identifiers is not syntax sugar (not that syntax sugar is > sometimes useful). Your syntax sugar is my gluten foundation, and vice-versa. After years of meddling with XML interoperability and the lack of it, I can't say that I've seen much evidence of the internal subset doing any substantial good in these matters. I'd rather do less so I can get on with doing more. -- Simon St.Laurent "Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue
|
