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

RE: Options for dealing with IDs

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 15:49:21 -0600
Message-ID: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACDC2@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com>
To: "'Chris Lilley'" <chris@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org

That should be "require DTD or Schema validation 
of any instance requesting it".  Why do it if you 
don't have to?  You will have to and often but that 
is ok.  A self-describing document is in for a 
pound if in for a penny.

1. Existing mechanism works.   Extending system attributes 
endlessly on the root is poor.  It is getting crowded 
in there with no end in sight.

2. Hinders composability.  Not really.  Hinders 
tools that are only well-formed aware.

3.  Leaves well-formed documents in a backwater 
of their own making.  Why not?  Nothing breaks. 
Well-formedness has limits with regards to support 
of interoperable systems.  This issue proves it 
by example.

4.  Retrogressive step.  Actually, putting more 
and more semantically loaded, system information 
into the root is retrogressive.  Separating that 
into a well-defined, well-understood, and implemented 
piece that even if surface ugly, works, is good 
computer science.

This is solving a problem of our own making.


From: Chris Lilley [mailto:chris@w3.org]

  1) Require DTD validation of all instances.
  A fully validating XML processor will, almost as a side effect,
  result in all attributes of type ID being so noted in the Infoset.

  - existing mechanism (DTDs)
  - existing mechanism is poor,
  - not namespace aware,
  - can't declare a content model of 'any' that really means 'any',
  - can't use with mixed namespace documents easily
  - hinders composability
  - needlessly conflates validation with decoration
  - leaves well formed documents in a backwater
  - retrogressive step
Received on Tuesday, 7 January 2003 16:50:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:56 UTC