• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 01:19:21 -0500
• In-reply-to: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E401C9B300@u...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E401C9B300@u...>

On Saturday 10 November 2001 10:15 pm, Champion, Mike wrote:
> You're not exactly John Q. Webhacker, Gavin! (likewise, Jonathan Borden).
> How about the folks who don't develop their own tools and haven't 10 years
> of experience with SGML?  Would ordinary mortals find some sort of
> standardized PI or namespace to define ID-ness helpful?

Actually, it is precisely those people that I think are hurt most by 
introducing all this special-casing. Every rule we add makes it just that 
much harder for people to grok.

People understood XML pretty well. Then along came schemas, XSL, xml:base, 
etc. etc. ad nauseum. For a lot of the common folk it's hard to understand 
what they need and what they don't:, becasue they have to learn everything in 
order to decide...

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>

• References:
  • RE: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: determining ID-ness in XML
• 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