• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: ht@c..., bob mcwhirter <bob@w...>
• Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 08:06:40 -0600

In relational dbs, one can autogenerate an ID, or choose 
a set member.  So the assignment of keyness is not the 
same as being a type.  Ok.  But just to be clear, why 
is that a mistake for XML?

len

-----Original Message-----
From: ht@c... [mailto:ht@c...]

Bob's comments remind me of one of the good things about the XML
Schema key/keyref mechanism -- it separates 'being a key' from 'being
a string/integer/date'.  SGML and then XML conflated these two, which
was with hindsight a mistake.

It would be nice if whatever solution we come up with didn't make that 
mistake again.  I _think_ the xml:idatt(s) proposal at least could be
understood to be _additional_ information about an attribute.

• Prev by Date: RE: Re: determining ID-ness in XML
• Next by Date: RE: Re: determining ID-ness in XML
• Previous by thread: Re: Java, DTD locally
• Next by thread: First "XML Cup" to be awarded at the XML Conference andExpositio n 2001
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread