Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
That's a fair question. Earlier in this thread I said that the term "xml processor" was quite vague. Is it the parser, something a parser talks to what? In either case, does it have to be cognizant of xml: and any name that follows that? Where does awareness of xml: have to be implemented? The question is really "is an id or a name being proposed"? SGML didn't require IDs of type ID or even CDATA to be targets of hyperlinks. It didn't have a concept for hyperlink: just unique IDs and a requirement for IDREFs to have a target of type ID. If as you say, this architectural fix is for a hyperlink target, then an ID isn't required. Never was for any system even before the web. Some SGMLers did use IDs for that but for a practical reason: the parser would tell us if the target was unique. Otherwise, we used namelocs and application logic to validate. A nameloc, a hyperlink target, can be implemented per application. In this case, it doesn't need to be in the xml: namespace and in fact, can be anything the application developers pick. So far, there is no compelling reason for it to be either Tim or James' proposed solutions. So far, the needy thing is XPointer. So in the end, perhaps the processor that has to care is not an xml processor at all. There is no gaping hole in the web architecture. There is the lack of a standard fragment name. Now you have to decide if that includes uniqueness. And you are back to square one. Without a clear requirement, there is no work to be done. len -----Original Message----- From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@m...] Just so we're clear on what we're talking about, when you write "xml processors" do you mean XML processor as defined in the XML 1.0 specification, and which common usage calls a parser? e.g. Xerces-J or expat? or are you talking about something more general?
|
