- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 13:38:34 -0600
- To: "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>
- Cc: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Ok. Simpler tools for common jobs. len -----Original Message----- From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 12:40 PM To: Bullard, Claude L (Len) Cc: Chris Lilley; www-tag@w3.org Subject: Re: Options for dealing with IDs Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > Someone please explain why this isn't a realistic > option given an on-demand scenario. If the DTD/Schema > were ALWAYS processed, I agree that is a bad thing. > The one thing that jumps out at me is that requiring > a DTD or Schema just to get at ID declarations is > a heavy requirement given that the number of > applications that use IDs is large, so this > can in fact, become a virtual requirement to > always get the DTD/Schema. > > Is that it? Pretty well. I lot of apps are just *not* gonna do it; but they still might like to know about IDs. -Tim
Received on Thursday, 9 January 2003 14:39:09 UTC