Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@r...] <snip/> > Michael Brennan wrote: > > > > This would mean extending the use of labels beyond simply labeling > > resources and locators within an extended link, but this > seems to me to > > be a very logical extension. I don't see why we need IDs > for this versus > > a simple label explicitly for the purpose of linking. > > > Because IDs are fairly widespread in documents, being used for > many purposes, but xlink:label attributes are not. That makes it > annoying to link to existing (unchangeable) documents. Yes, but xml:id attributes and xml:idattr attributes are not in any existing documents. My point was to use xlink:label in lieu of these other proposals, rather than introduce a new special attribute in the xml namespace just for the purpose of linking. (That's what I meant to say. I shouldn't have used "ID" in all uppercase in my post.) And these proposals for a special attribute do not address the issue of IDness of an attribute any better than using xlink:label -- without a PSVI, they are just a special name for an attribute, just like xlink:label. So my question stands (with the clarification that I meant "id" in lowercase, in specific reference to the proposals for a special attribute name). The use case of supporting a simple fragment identifier without relying upon a PSVI seems reasonable to me. But these proposals for a special xml:id or xml:idattr attributes strike me as completely superfluous proposals that don't solve any problems that can't be solved by existing constructs, such as using xlink:label. (Note to self: brush up on communication skills.)
|
