• To: Evan Lenz <elenz@x...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 18:25:37 -0500
• References: <BNEMICIEADHDDOIKLHNCKEJCFIAA.elenz@x...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.5) Gecko/20011012

Evan Lenz wrote:


> Perhaps instead of adding something like xml:id, the next version or errata
> or xml-dev RDDL-like effort just needs to tighten up the requirements about
> what to report from the internal subset (that would be a short spec for
> sure).


Been there, done that; it's the Infoset.


-- 
Not to perambulate             || John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
    the corridors               || http://www.reutershealth.com
during the hours of repose     || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
    in the boots of ascension.  \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
    • From: "Evan Lenz" <elenz@x...>

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