Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@m...] >Certainly, but let's examine this: We define an "ID" as an XML 1.0 ID _which >is only defined by a DTD_. A "nameloc" is ? a general way of defining an >_identitier_. If so then "xml:id" does not define an "ID" rather a >"nameloc". Yes. Change the name to something other than id to keep the confusion down. Overloading names is bad in spec writing. Make it a nameloc and I am a happy camper. Now you have to pick a way to declare namelocs. PIs work. Internal subsets work. Industry conventions sort of work. >> Not without a bounded scope, Jonathan. The days >> of the freedom of the XML core groups to obscure >> by misdirection such notions are over. Never Another >> "Namespace Is Just A Disambiguating String" ploy. >He, he, you believed that? :-) Not for a minute. >> All requirements up front, clear, and signed. >> Otherwise, no change. It costs too much to >> allow the children to play in the design these days. >Similarly it costs too much _not_ to move forward when real problems need to >be solved. In a perfect world world we would all know our requirements, have >the same requirements, and agree on the solutions to these requirements. We did know. ISO 8879 and ISO 10744. len
|
