Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
That is one explanation. However: 1. No one has stated a requirement that the name actually be an ID. A name will do. (see elliotte). If a name will do, this is a nameloc and there is not a gaping hole in the architecture. 2. If that is not the case, and it must be an ID, then what the xml:id proposal does is begin to marginalize the use of DTDs. Not without a bounded scope, Jonathan. The days of the freedom of the XML core groups to obscure by misdirection such notions are over. Never Another "Namespace Is Just A Disambiguating String" ploy. All requirements up front, clear, and signed. Otherwise, no change. It costs too much to allow the children to play in the design these days. len -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@m...] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 2:00 PM To: xml-dev@l...; Christopher R. Maden Subject: Re: Re: determining ID-ness in XML Christopher R. Maden wrote: > > There are valid XML documents written without xml:id. > > It would be good for non-DTD-reading systems to know about IDs in those > documents. The whole point of xml:id is for documents which are well-formed. All valid XML documents are valid with respect to a DTD which can indicate IDs. > > Adding xml:id will invalidate those documents. Right, but there is no need to add xml:id to documents which are associated with a DTD, the entire reason for existence is those XML documents without a DTD. So yes, you can shoot yourself in the head, but doing so is not recommended :-) Jonathan ----------------------------------------------------------------- The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
