• To: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>,"Eric van der Vlist" <vdv@d...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 15:20:26 -0500
• In-reply-to: <008f01c16b79$0bf75d20$0a2e249b@n...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <3BEF9991.9080102@d...> <008f01c16b79$0bf75d20$0a2e249b@n...>

On Monday 12 November 2001 07:53 am, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> An ID is the name of a subresource (fragment) that _the document asserts_.
> Applications are free to use these document defined names, or choose
> others.

Actually, I would debate that the document asserts it. The document is data, 
the DTD asserts an interpretation thereof.

> Fragment identifiers of URIs are intended to be parsed according to media
> type (perhaps application/xml) and as such the idea that there is an "XML
> name" for a fragment of a document is a completely valid one, of course
> realizing that other applications may choose to name things in different
> ways.

The syntax doesn't have to be a naked name. The syntax of the fragment id can 
be whatever one wishes...

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>

• References:
  • IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
• Next by Date: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
• Previous by thread: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
• Next by thread: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread