Re: Stylesheet association

Lee writes:
>No -- that would mean that you could only parse XML documents if you
could parse the xlinks in this external document, so the document
would have to become part of the base XML spec, making that language
more complex.
I did follow the WG's discussion of EMPTY and I do have sympathy for
the result.  But the base XML spec was written without much 
consideration of how XML is to be served over the Internet, and
as the rubber meets the road on the way to Santa Clara, we are
seeing that additional framework is needed.

The case of associating style sheets with read-only documents
illustrates that it is not possible to cover all the bases by
pointing out from a single XML instance to ancillary matter.
The base XML spec will have (eventually) to be revised to
deal with this problem.  That revision will inevitably deal
with a Second Part to XML instances; in the meantime implementors
will be constructing solutions in the absence of a spec.

Once a Second Part is admitted as necessary (and implemented)
many now vexing problems will find easier solutions.  <empty/>
is one of the worst warts on the present spec, inviting error
and difficult to explain ("<IMG> works fine in HTML, <anchor>
works fine in SGML, what's the problem?"  "Conformance with SGML.")
I urge the SGML ERB to devote some time *before the Santa Clara
convention* to consideration of packaging and delivery.  I think
it will satisfy itself that XML won't get far without a Second
Part, that robust XML applications will have to be able to deal
with a Second Part, and that specifying the semantics, if not
the syntax, of a Second Part will simplify rather than complicate
the complete XML specification.

Your mileage may vary.

  Terry Allen    Electronic Publishing Consultant    tallen[at]sonic.net
       specializing in Web publishing, SGML, and the DocBook DTD 
  A Davenport Group Sponsor:  http://www.ora.com/davenport/index.html