• To: James Clark <jjc@j...>
• Subject: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 08:52:01 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• References: <E163Qf2-0008CL-00@s...> <360680761.1005641126@[192.168.0.152]>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.5) Gecko/20011012

James Clark wrote:


[magisterial summary deleted]


> (B) The other choice we can make is to say that ID-ness is important.


I agree with this view, and on primarily data-centric grounds.  Without
IDs, XML can only serialize trees.  With IDs, it can serialize
arbitrary graphs in a fairly application-independent way, at least
within a single document.  This is often an important facility.

  
> The only solution that I've seen that works with choice (B) 
> is xml:idatt(s).


I agree.

-- 
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: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: "J C Theriot" <theriot@p...>
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Bob Hutchison <hutch@x...>
  • 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: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: James Clark <jjc@j...>

• Prev by Date: Re: annotations outside validation
• Next by Date: Doing less is all a matter of perspective was Re: IDs considered harmful
• 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