• To: veillard@r...
• Subject: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 18:36:46 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <20011111172525.C12589@r...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E401C9B300@u...> <E1632Yw-0006KT-00@s...> <20011111172525.C12589@r...>

On Sunday 11 November 2001 05:25 pm, Daniel Veillard wrote:
>   Well, If you think starting somthing against RFC 2396 is gonna fly,
> you have the right to try by yourself :-)

It doesn't yet specify XPointer as the fragment identifier of choice yet does 
it?

> I don't buy your counter example :-), name=xxx works on an identical level,
> the users don't even know if it's an ID or not. They know that #foo will
> go there and that's all they look after.

Right, the main advantage of making it somewhat more generic is that it 
allows application-level scoping (which is what people really do with anchor 
tags anyway).

• 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: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: ID-ness in XML
• Next by Date: Re: Re: determining ID-ness in XML
• 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