W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2003

RE: Options for dealing with IDs

From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@topologi.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 03:57:57 +1100
Message-ID: <001701c2bbee$16ade1a0$4bc8a8c0@AlletteSystems.com>
To: <www-tag@w3.org>


From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>


At 1:24 AM +1100 1/14/03, Rick Jelliffe wrote:

>I think Chris misses out another option:
>
>?) Refactor XML so that there are four kinds of XML processors:  headlessWF,
>     WF, typed, and valid.  Deprecate WF in favour of WF and typedWF in all W3C
>     specifications.
>
>    - Headless WF must have no DOCTYPE.

> And what happens if it does? How does a document indicate that it is 
> headless? Simply by not having a DOCTYPE? Or is this a parser option? 
> What happens if a headless parser encounters a DOCTYPE? This feels 
> very rough to me.

If a headless parser finds a DOCTYPE it would fail. (Strictly, it would only
need to check if standalone=yes and if there are no declarations in the
internal subset which affect the infoset: set attribute values to ID* or 
adding default values, but that is too much work.)

A document without a DOCTYPE declaration is headless.  

It would be a parser option or parser type, just as WF or Validating are currently
parser options or types.   

Where is the roughness?

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

 
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 12:56:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:15 GMT