• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 09:02:49 -0600

They are labels.  ID means ID when used in a DTD or 
Schema.  Pushing back the other way dilutes the 
industrial strength definitions.   Would 
it not be better when using that convention to 
add new functions:  ourLabel(), getElementByOurLabel()?

XML 1.0, SGML, etc. are not broken.  
There is a "gaping hole" in XPointer 
called "well-formedness".

XPointer is encumbered anyway.  Let it die.  ;-)

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@S...]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@i...]

> In fact, those aren't 
> IDs at all; just labels and any name will do.

Well, they're ID's for the purposes of XPath id(), DOM getElementById(),
Xpointer, etc. implementations that follow the proposed convention, but
they're just labels as far as SGML/XSDL are concerned.   Those that need the
reliability will choose the industrial strength solution; those that just
need something to link to can use the RDDL-ish convention.

• Prev by Date: SV: When to Validate XML?
• Next by Date: RE: When to Validate XML?
• Previous by thread: RE: Re: determining ID-ness in XML
• Next by thread: RE: Re: determining ID-ness in XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread