- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 16:51:43 +0100
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
- CC: "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>, www-tag@w3.org
On Thursday, January 9, 2003, 7:28:50 PM, Claude wrote: BCLL> Someone please explain why this isn't a realistic BCLL> option given an on-demand scenario. If the DTD/Schema BCLL> were ALWAYS processed, I agree that is a bad thing. Yes. BCLL> The one thing that jumps out at me is that requiring BCLL> a DTD or Schema just to get at ID declarations is BCLL> a heavy requirement given that the number of BCLL> applications that use IDs is large, Exactly. BCLL> so this can in fact, become a virtual requirement to always get BCLL> the DTD/Schema. BCLL> Is that it? Yes. I think you just explained why it wasn't realistic very well - the number of applications that need to know IDness is very large, so requiring them to fetch an external DTD is to heavy and requiring all instances to start with a substantial internal subset of 60 or so <!ATTLIST foo ID #IMPLIED> for all values of foo is also too heavy. What is needed is a simple and lightweight method of determining IDness for well-formed instances. Making it upwards compatible when either of DTD or Schema validation (or both) is then performed, is clearly desirable for interoperability. BCLL> len BCLL> From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com] BCLL> Isn't this a variation of #1? I.e. it requires that interoperable BCLL> processing requires fetching and looking in a DTD. So probably not BCLL> realistic. -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Friday, 10 January 2003 10:51:51 UTC