• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XPointer crisis
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 18:38:13 -0500
• In-reply-to: <200202012136.g11LaZj26264@d...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <20020201144101.E29819@r...> <5.1.0.14.0.20020201134448.029015c8@157.189.161.214> <200202012136.g11LaZj26264@d...>

On Friday 01 February 2002 04:36 pm, Joe English wrote:
> Re: the 'xml:id' and 'xml:idattr' proposals: these sound reasonable,
> but it seems to me like an awful lot of work to specify, implement,
> and deploy just for the sake of barename fragment identifiers.

Right, they fall into the category of "specious standardization". I 
really can't see the point in standardizing a mechanism *that can 
already be used* but for which no experience exists.

I say standardize only the bare minimum necessary... 

• References:
  • Re: XPointer crisis
    • From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>
  • Re: XPointer crisis
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@s...>
  • Re: XPointer crisis
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XPointer crisis
• Next by Date: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Previous by thread: Re: XPointer crisis
• Next by thread: Re: XPointer crisis
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread