EMBED and validation

[Simon St.Laurent]

>As for "document trees" (groves), the initial result is *never* a single
>tree containing the results of parsing two documents (if the thing used by
>reference is another document).  However, a processing application might
>choose to construct a *new* tree that combines the two documents in some
>way that makes sense *to the application*.  For example, I've written
>several instances of a program that takes a tree of subdocuments and
>creates a single instance from them.

Precisely.  I'd like to be able to tell that application to create a single 
instance from the trees (in whatever shape they arrive) under certain 
circumstances.  Having to guess whether an application will do so makes the 
tools far less useful.

The use by reference/use by value distinction is important, but made painful 
in practice by the fact that XML has an infinitely richer vocabulary for use 
by reference than it does for use by value.  Entities are extraordinarily 
limited when compared to the rich possibilities XPointers open up, and I hope 
that for many, though of course not all, uses entities (and notations as well) 
will be effectively obsoleted.

Maybe Ted Nelson's right, and all this markup stuff gets in the way of proper 
transclusion.

Simon St.Laurent
Dynamic HTML: A Primer / XML: A Primer (January) / Cookies (February)



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)