[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <SimonStL@classic.msn.com>
- To: xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
- Date: Tue, 7 Jul 98 13:14:12 UT
>Two nits:
>
>1) The More element should be optional (needs a "?").
Totally correct. Will be fixed quickly.
>2) Why is id optional? Is this to allow people to decide for themselves
>if they want to be reused?
I have a few problems with requiring id.
First, I'm still one of those terrible hand-coders. Being required to come up
with an ID for every piece is a hassle, especially for bits I'll never reuse.
This is not, of course, an issue for the authoring tools that will someday
(hopefully) take over the landscape.
Second, I know I can grab the same info with an XPointer without needing to go
to an ID. It may not be as quick, and the final syntax may be a little murky,
but I'm sure the functionality will be there.
I think id should be there - it makes life much easier for authoring and
management programs. I don't see a compelling reason to require it, given the
improvements in linking that XPointer makes possible. There may, of course,
be such a need that I haven't found yet.
Simon St.Laurent
Dynamic HTML: A Primer / XML: A Primer / Cookies
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)
|
