RE: [xml-dev] Re: determining ID-ness in XML

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

I guess I don't like the "80/20 is the best we will get" 
argument up front because it is like going to Australia 
and having the inspector at the airport stamping my 
passport with "Fosters ONLY".  I know they have better 
and I want it.  That said, I understand compromise and 
why when we have this many players, we all give a little. 
But FOSTERS!!!!  Better to get back on the plane.

PIs are the solution that would let us live with this. 
System vocabulary solutions put in a permanent feature. 

What do we want?  I tend toward system vocabulary fix 
mainly because I want this done and stable for x number 
of years so we can get on to the profit part of XML.  Son 
of Hytime would for the W3C, have to come out of the 
Web Architecture group.  Not likely, but I brought it 
up not to suggest that, but to ask how many more of these 
"oopsies" we might have to deal with, that the Hytime 
work outed a lot of the issues, and that we really should 
ask ourselves not just as XMLers but as web developers, 
what solutions should be doctrine across web applications? 
That is a bigger problem than IDness, but as we see, IDness 
is fundamental, so doctrinal.

So ask yourselves:

1.  How much of the problem do we want to solve now?
2.  How long do we want that solution to last?

What we have developed in this thread are options.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com]


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 10:57 AM
> To: Champion, Mike; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Re: determining ID-ness in XML
> 
> 
> W3C policy and doctrine are not a result of natural 
> selection.  

Hmmm ... It's certainly not a result of global optimization.  It is
definitely about finding solutions that everyone can live with, even if
nobody particularly likes.  Sounds like Darwin, and my creaky knees, to me!


But this is all a digression: my point is that an 80:20 solution to the
ID-ness problem is the best we can hope for, and either the xml:is-ish
solution or the PI solution is better than "nothing" (i.e., making everyone
who wants IDs use a DTD) IMHO.  

The main argument favoring the xml:ish solution seems to be that it
leverages the namespace mechanism and the xml: reserved prefix in a very
minimal, but powerful way.  The downside is that since it is in XML syntax
itself, it can't plausibly be defined by anyone but the W3C (or Microsoft,
now that Dubya has given Bill a free pass to conquer the Internet, but
that's another digression). 

The main argument favoring the PI solution seems to be that it can be
slipped in as a "usage convention" that won't break non-conforming
processors but can be used by those aware of the convention to declare IDs
without a DTD.  The downside is that PIs are in bad odor at the W3C and
forbidden in SOAP messages (but I think some appropriate weasel words could
be crafted to make this work for payloads delivered by SOAP, or SOAP could
explicitly recognize this as a looks-like-a-PI-but-is-not-really-a-PI
thingie like the XML declaration. 

Is this about right?  Is there any practical possibility of a "usage
convention" involving a PI declaring ID attributes being an incremental
solution that takes us one step down the evolutionary path while the
Intelligent Designers at the W3C or Microsoft or the Son-of-Hytime technical
committee do their thing?


-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>