xml:id RE: [sc34wg3] Compact syntax requirement question

[Robert Barta]

On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 09:48:50AM +0200, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> However, even if the file is valid according to the schema, violating
> TMDM isn't that difficult, although it may not be obvious how to do
> it.  Here's one example:

> | then I wonder whether this all works.
> 
> What's the problem?

The 'violation' is the 'problem'. I do not think XTM (or TMDM) should
try to fix this. It is, as it is.

> | If conjecture [A] is true, my argument, then, would be "if XTM (+
> | DTD/Relax/Schema) cannot guarantee that my content which I put in
> | with this nifty-hefty-trendy XML development thingy is TMDM-sane,
> | how does XTM editing make sense at all?"
> 
> It's common for the schema to not fully define an XML markup language,
> because usually there are structural rules that the schema just cannot
> restrict.

And this was exactly my counterargument Re: Bertrand. If he claims
that an XML editor 'guides' an author appropriately and there is no
need for tools to _really_ check whether the map is TMDM conformant
(what did we talk about in the last years?)...

> I don't see this as being an argument against editing XTM directly,
> though.

...then the shown violation is the argument that an XML-based language
is in no other position, than a non-XML based language.

Not?

\rho