• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:38:32 -0500
• In-reply-to: <02fb01c16c8e$dd5b7980$b200a8c0@c249486a>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <E163Qf2-0008CL-00@s...> <E163lFJ-0006Xl-00@s...> <02fb01c16c8e$dd5b7980$b200a8c0@c249486a>

On Tuesday 13 November 2001 05:02 pm, Evan Lenz wrote:
> I believe that you're splitting hairs. Please recognize that his statement
> is true on some level--that there's a distinction to be made between IDs
> and IDREFs which are defined in XML 1.0, and other methods of reference
> which are specific to applications of XML, such as XLink.

I'm not splitting hairs here. Even ID/IDREF require an application to 
interpret them... 

• References:
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: "Evan Lenz" <elenz@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Next by Date: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might bebetterthanIDs...
• 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