• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 11:33:06 -0800
• In-reply-to: <360680761.1005641126@[192.168.0.152]>
• References: <E163Qf2-0008CL-00@s...><E163Qf2-0008CL-00@s...>

At 08:45 AM 13/11/01 +0700, James Clark wrote:

>(a) Remove the RawName construct in XPointer
>(b) Change the semantics of the RawName construct in XPointer to say that it refers to, say, a element with a xptr:name attribute with a particular value
>(c) Add an xml:idatt(s) to XML

The longer I think about xml:idatts the less I like it, simply
because it feels wrong to add yet another declaration method/
syntax on top of what we already have in this sort of ad-hoc way,
when the problem, operationally, doesn't seem that severe.  Once
again, mea culpa for pushing this grungy snowball over the 
edge of the hill.

I don't understand XPointer well enough to have an intelligent
opinion about (a) or (b).  Except for I'm generally in favor
of removing things :) -Tim

• 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: James Clark <jjc@j...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Caught napping!
• Next by Date: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• 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