A unique ID question ? (was: external parsed entites)

[Len Bullard]

G. Ken Holman wrote:
> 
> Yes, I can understand those who don't want to give users enough rope to
> hang themselves, but I don't think we can legislate all barriers to
> abuse.  

We can try.  If we get rid of the rope makers, we can get rid 
of the hangings.  Seems to be the way the tobacco legislation 
is going on this side of the falls.

> Certainly it behooves us who work with this technology to preach
> that external parsed entities are unacceptable for fragment reuse (thank
> you, Eliot, for doing so publicly), but if people won't listen, is that the
> design's fault?  Does the feature *have* to disappear?

Of course not.  It just has to be defended from time to time by a 
reasonable user with a reasonable and well-stated requirement.  
Thanks, Ken.  

I take Eliot and Tim very seriously, and if they 
want it out, I want to know why.  I understand the reference 
bear.  To me, the general entities are not as useful as they once were, 
but for those that know how, understand their limits, and 
apply them accordingly, they are safe.  I can remember when 
PIs were despised too, and darn, they got a new career after 
the revolution.  Soo..

Now that unique ID thing and namespaces?  Something about hats? 
Does everyone feel comfortable about the problems with ID/IDREFs 
and aggregate documents? Our only solution for X3D is to keep 
the Protos and Inlines in tightly sealed bags.   Is it the 
case that if we use IDs and IDREFs, we don't have any way 
of ensuring their unique relationships if X3D is used with 
an XHTML host?  

len


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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe 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)