EMBED and validation
Eve L. Maler
elm at arbortext.com
Sat Nov 29 15:14:54 GMT 1997
At 04:16 AM 11/28/97 -0500, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
>At 05:09 28/11/97 UT, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>>>No; it's not part of the document; it's a hyperlink to something
>>>completely different; there's no reason to expect what it points at
>>>to be XML. -Tim
>No - and JUMBO can eat about 17 types of non-XML files (e.g. *.txt, *.gif,
>and lots of lovely chemistry). If *any of you* want to write a simple
>routine for RTF, Word binary, MAC BinHex, it would be marvellous. All you
>need to do is decide on the tree structure - JUMBO can then output it in
>>While there is no reason to expect the target to be XML (which I strongly
>>approve of), I have to wonder what's supposed to happen if the target _is_
>You approve that it must/needNot be XML. For me the latter is essential.
>Sometime ago I proposed an extra attribute MIME to describe the MIME type
>of the target HREF. (Note that this is NOT always available from
>contentType since it may be a local file. If this doesn't get into the
>SPEC, I suggest we need an XDEV attribute and I proposed that 2 days ago...
>>XML. If the target is another complete XML document, including a document
>>type declaration, then I can see the wisdom of parsing it separately and
>>keeping it separate. If the target is XML but not a complete document, for
>>instance a set of elements returned by a reference using XPointers, I'm not
>This is (I believe) 'application-dependent. I see the following
>(A) Render the tree and paint the referred elements blue. JUMBO does this.
>You don't get a choice of colours at present
>(B) Render the event stream and paint the elements red. JUMBO cannot do
>joined up writing yet, but is gradually learning how to render event
>streams (it can do most of HTML 2.0)
>(B) Regard this as a query (remember our discussions here?) and use the
>nodes in some other way. That's why I think XLL Xpointer syntax is the
>appropriate base for a query language.
>>sure about what the application should do.
(lots of good stuff removed...)
I don't think I've seen it explicitly suggested here, so here goes. If you
want to ensure that what's pointed to is real XML, and "belongs" in that
location, how about using a plain old external text entity? With a
validating XML processor, you can guarantee that (a) the entity will be
expanded in place before it even gets to the application and that (b) it
will be validated in context.
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;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev