• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:44:29 -0500
• In-reply-to: <01f801c16c16$8484a390$6400a8c0@JMG>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <3BEF9991.9080102@d...> <E163VdZ-00015K-00@s...> <01f801c16c16$8484a390$6400a8c0@JMG>

On Tuesday 13 November 2001 02:40 am, Jeff Greif wrote:
> The ability of IDs in conjunction with IDREFs to tie together parts of a
> document not in hierarchical relationship is valuable.  The uniqueness of
> IDs may or may not be of interest in such a case (non-unique IDs may
> simulate the class attribute used in HTML).

Sure, but the non-heirarchical linking is not exclusively possible using 
ID/IDREF pairs. You can define your own structures that do this just as 
easily... and for a lot of *text*, ID/IDREF pairs are totally insufficient.

Again, beyond validation I've NEVER found the ID/IDREF information useful.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
    • From: Marcus Carr <mrc@a...>

• References:
  • IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
  • Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
    • From: "Jeff Greif" <jgreif@a...>

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