• To: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>, gtn@r...
• Subject: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 23:10:44 -0800
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• References: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E401C9B300@u...><E163NOI-0000V0-00@s...><200111122245.WAA17961@p...><E163Qix-0008Gn-00@s...><200111130008.AAA18294@p...>

> The main (One could almost say only) benefit of having identified labels
> (which need not be ID in the XMl sense) within the document using some
> globally known syntax is their use in fragment identifiers.

Actually, there's the "how to maintain the links" problem too.
When an author has gone to the effort to define IDs/anchors
for use in linking, it's a lot more realistic to believe those IDs
can be maintained over document evolution ... including the
negotiated transformations that David Carlisle mentioned.

Since that's NOT true of XPath style addressing (navigating
over a structure that usually changes between incarnations),
I've also got to completely disagree with Gavin's stance about
those "RawName" style fragment ids.  They're the _most_ useful
style, not the least useful.

- Dave

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>

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

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