- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:33:27 -0400
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>
Please remember to cc Rich explicitly on these emails. paul > -----Original Message----- > From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Norman Walsh > Sent: Wednesday, 13 April, 2005 14:05 > To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: XML Validity and DTD dependance > > / Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com> was heard to say: > [...] > | It seems to me, then, that DTDs are not useful, and maybe not > | even possible, for XML standards or documents that use namespaces. > | The problem with this is that XML validity requires a DTD (see [1]). > | For my particular concern, the uniqueness of ID attributes, > | part of validity, is crucial for using XML Signatures or Encryption > | on SOAP messages. > > With xml:id, your application can enforce ID uniqueness constraints > independent of validation. > > | XML validity is important, and perhaps should be separated > from DTD's. > > What does validity mean separate from DTDs? Do you only mean enforcing > ID uniqueness constraints, or do you have more in mind? > > Be seeing you, > norm > > P.S. You don't mention it, but you could attack the problem from the > other side, adding <!NAMESPACE ...> declarations to DTDs so that they > can support namespaces.
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2005 19:33:50 UTC