• To: "John Cowan" <jcowan@r...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
• From: "Evan Lenz" <elenz@x...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 15:45:24 -0800
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <3BF05A71.7010208@r...>

John Cowan wrote:
> Evan Lenz wrote:
>
>
> > Perhaps instead of adding something like xml:id, the next
> version or errata
> > or xml-dev RDDL-like effort just needs to tighten up the
> requirements about
> > what to report from the internal subset (that would be a short spec for
> > sure).
>
>
> Been there, done that; it's the Infoset.

Hmm, then what is this sentence meant to convey? "Nor does it constitute a
minimum set of information that must be returned by an XML processor."
http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#intro

Evan

• References:
  • Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
• 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: Dynamic XML/XSL
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread