• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 18:36:36 -0500
• In-reply-to: <20011112172650.P12589@r...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011109123709.020beec0@p...> <5.1.0.14.2.20011112133450.020806a0@p...> <20011112172650.P12589@r...>

On Monday 12 November 2001 05:26 pm, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> But expressing how to find the IDs in the document at the
> XPointer syntax level won't be fun. If not in XPointer
> then it's either the instance or the DTD. Did I miss something ?

It's also entirely unecessary *except* for the RawName construct in XPointer.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: James Clark <jjc@j...>

• References:
  • So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Next by Date: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
• Previous by thread: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Next by thread: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread