Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > > Let me phrase the question this way: regarding validity and validity > > only, not the semantics of the attribute, is there any objection to > > an xml:id attribute that is not equally true of xml:base? So far I > > can't see one. I wouldn't take the resounding silence from the punters on xml:base to be an endorsement. All these changes should be bundled together into some unified pre-announced version-up of XML, rather than tacked on willy nilly. One of the lessons, perhaps, of SGML is that the only optional parts/add-ons of/to standards that survive are the ones that almost everyone implements: if only one or two players support an optional part of a standard intended for interoperability, it won't last. Cheers Rick
|
