Re: XML is broken (was Re: Why Doesn't IE5 use the DTD toValidate?)

Subject: Re: XML is broken (was Re: Why Doesn't IE5 use the DTD toValidate?)
From: Sara Mitchell <smitchel@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 12:33:43 -0800
James Clark's responses on the issue have cleared up the issue
from
my perspective. I agree that the XML spec is not as explicit as 
it should be on what forces a validating parser to validate and
that
has allowed Microsoft to slide. But please don't suggest a whole
new set of rules!

"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> 
> Well, if IE 5 isn't broken, maybe it's time to consider (and discuss)
> whether the XML spec isn't broken, and badly.
> [SNIP] 
> A better validation approach would:
> * Not interfere with well-formed documents (attribute defaulting done
> different)

We don't need another set of rules.  I understand that much of
this
is awkward to people who are new to XML and it may not be clear 
why some things have to be as complicated as they are. But adding 
on a new set of rules just makes it more complicated, not less
so.

> * Provide a simple mechanism for documents to identify their type, not all
> the details about their their structure.

> * Be reliable.  Applications could control how documents are validated,
> instead of relying on the document to provide them with a roadmap.

Again, this is part of the strength of SGML and XML. Information
needs 
to identify how it should be handled, don't stuff it in a
separate
application! There are certainly cases where it's advisable for a 
receiving application to demand validation -- and other cases
where the
author needs to demand validation. But having that information in
the document itself is important. 

> * Describe more than just text and elements.

People are working on this area and it's appropriate for some
things. 
But don't demand that documents with information for human
consumption
fit into a more rigid requirement needed for processing data.
There
are two audiences here, and the requirements for the information
should
fit the audience.

> * Allow supporting tools (like XSL and XLink, which benefit greatly from a
> validating environment) to demand validation of documents against schemas
> before attempting processing.
> [SNIP] 

This could be done quite simply by clarifying the XML spec to
make it 
explicit that any presence of an ELEMENT declaration means that a 
validating parser must validate. Then Microsoft can either step
back 
up to the bar or make it clear that IE5 is not a validating
parser.


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list


Current Thread