"John E. Simpson" wrote:
> Okay, I can see pretty much how it works. Nifty. My only qualm is about use
> of public identifiers in the entity declarations, which would seem to
> narrow the "it works" claim to the class of applications which know what to
> do with public IDs. Does it work just as well (or better :) using a SYSTEM
> identifier instead?
You could use a SYSTEM identifier; I used a PUBLIC because I generally do this
with SGML. With SGML, I believe it would attempt to resolve the SYSTEM identifier
to a resource, wouldn't it?
> And what, exactly (even approximately!), is *in* the "ENTITES for day
> parts" resources? Just entity declarations? attribute values, unadorned
> with any markup?
There is no resource - the PUBLIC identifier (in this case) acts similarly to
namespaces. It identifies a resource that exists in name only. What was shown in
the example was everything you need - there were no missing bits.
> Thanks for any help. Notations (especially with public IDs) have always
> been one of XML's most impenetrable black boxes for me.
I hope I'm not misquoting Rick Jelliffe - I credit him with clarifying this sort
of NOTATION use for me with the phrase "It's an attribute of an entity". If I am
misquoting and people think it's a clever reminder, I'll claim credit for it
Marcus Carr email: [log in to unmask]
Allette Systems (Australia) www: http://www.allette.com.au
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."