Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Simon St.Laurent wrote: > >> 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. > Being too quick to discard DTDs is the perfect example of the premature ejection of a core part of XML 1.0, at the same time piling on new 'features' for XML. The whole point is that one can _already_ implement in-line ID attribute declarations (using the internal DTD subset). As I recall, we have _already_ gone though a long process in an attempt to replace DTDs with some type of XML syntax, yet today we still are having these discussions. The ability to define an identifier unique within a document seems like a straightforward and reasonable requirement. Do XML Schema or RELAXNG solve this apparently simple problem in an equivalent fashion to the DTD? I think that XML 1.0 _taken as a whole_ is far better designed than most people realize, and what some people see as a feature to be discarded with their left hand, they seem to ask for in another form with their right hand. It is time to better use what we already _have_ which should get around the global problem of too many XML specifications that sort of but don't completely work together. Jonathan
|
