Re: [xml] Question regarding xmlAddId

[Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>]

On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 12:15:02AM -0500, Rich Salz wrote:
> >   yes the XML Protocol WG screwed up on this (IMHO), and whoever designed
> > the format you are using requiring an Id of type ID on a soap:Body just failed
> > too.
>
> The presence os eterndal entities made DTD's too dangerous for SOAP.

   I though it was <!ENTITY foo20 "&foo19; &foo19;">
and the like which was scaring them ... external entities can certainly be
blocked. And IIRC the real underlying reason was to be able to make specific
parser without any entity support (so much simpler !)

> Rather than subset a DTD, SOAP just outlawed them.  I think they made
> the right decision. :)  The only reason to have a DTD is to identify
> attributes of type ID.  It is unfortunate xml:id is only just now being
> created -- it's clearly lame (not quite broken :) that it took almost a
> decade.

   Well, we just went to Last Call. And it's present in libxml2 already :-)

> XMLDSIG does not *have* to use ID attributes.  It can use XPath,
> for example.  So that framework isn't broken, either.

   Okay, so why can't Erik use the XPath support, it's a bit less trivial
but should work. There is something I'm missing !

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Desktop team http://redhat.com/
veillard redhat com  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/