• To: "Gavin Thomas Nicol" <gtn@r...>,"John Cowan" <jcowan@r...>
• Subject: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• From: "Evan Lenz" <elenz@x...>
• Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:02:18 -0800
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• References: <E163Qf2-0008CL-00@s...> <E163hq5-0006F2-00@s...> <3BF16F4D.30508@r...> <E163lFJ-0006Xl-00@s...>

Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
> John Cowan wrote:
> > *in an application-independent way*.  Of course you can define your own
> > mechanism, or use XLink.
>
> You can never, ever, serialize a graph in an application-independent way.
> Where did the graph come from in the first place?

I believe that you're splitting hairs. Please recognize that his statement
is true on some level--that there's a distinction to be made between IDs and
IDREFs which are defined in XML 1.0, and other methods of reference which
are specific to applications of XML, such as XLink.

Evan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>

• References:
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Next by Date: Re: annotations outside validation
• 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