W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: Argh...Entities

From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 00:03:26 -0500
Message-ID: <37390B9E.4A09C7B2@prescod.net>
To: xml-dev <xml-dev@ic.ac.uk>
CC: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
John Cowan wrote:
> I remain unreconstructed.
> If we are to have validatable ENTITY/ENTITIES attributes, then
> we must have unparsed entity declarations as well.  Either
> lose both or keep both, say I.


Well, I am perfectly happy to lose ENTITY/ENTITIES and while we're at it
ID/IDREF. URLs and XPointers can do both jobs better. Let's keep our
layers clean and separate!


Even so, I don't follow your argument. The schema needs to validate that
there is a unparsed entity with a particular name. Why does the
declaration have to be done in the schema?

It makes perfect sense to me that a *document* should declare what
external resources it needs (through a URL or entity declaration) and that
the *schema* would verify that an element that is supposed to reference a
resource actually does (whether through a URL or entity).

Your argument seems analgous to arguing that IDs should indirect through
an "ID object" in the schema. Entities and IDs are a type of object that
are tied to a document. Constraints on them apply to a class of documents.
The former should go in a document and the latter in a schema.

 Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself

And so, in one of history's little ironies, the global triumph of bad
software in the age of the PC was reversed by a surprising combination
of forces: the social transformation initiated by the network, a
long-discarded European theory of political economy, and a small band
of programmers throughout the world mobilized by a single simple idea. 
 - http://old.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/anarchism.html
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 1999 13:44:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:08:45 UTC