• To: <xml-dev@l...>, "John Cowan" <cowan@m...>
• Subject: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
• From: "Evan Lenz" <elenz@x...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 19:12:18 -0800
• References: <E163Tkk-0007su-00@m...>

John Cowan wrote:
> Evan Lenz scripsit:
>
> > 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
>
> It meant that we were not changing the definition of XML 1.0.

Right, but changing XML 1.0 is precisely what would be required, i.e. to
require that all XML processors report attribute types, at least ID
attribute types. If everyone's already doing it, then it's not that big of a
deal, but it makes sense to include it in the spec, perhaps as an erratum.

Evan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be betterthanIDs...
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>

• References:
  • Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

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