[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] Re: determining ID-ness in XML
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 16:24:33 -0600
Isn't the point to use a means the XML processor
isn't free to ignore per specification? That is
why the concept of "reliability" was introduced
although one could say "efficiency" and mention
the cases of XPointers and serialization.
One extends the system vocabulary precisely because
it extends the requirement for the XML processor.
If all you need is a convention, a PI or an
alternative namespace are equally ignorable.
Otherwise, we could just go on as is: "if you
need an ID, spec a DTD and cite it in the
contract for the communication when using
well-formed files. This is only as reliable
as your partners are diligent."
Independent parties should not be extending
the rules for the system vocabulary. That
is precisely what so many here beat MS up for.
There is no QED here. There is nothing to
be proved other than that a solution meets a
requirement and that there is a rough consensus
on the necessity for the requirement and the
effectiveness of the solution.
Then it is a sales job to the Web Architecture
group. This is why a precisely stated requirement
means so much to this kind of process: traceability.
From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
At 10:51 AM -0500 11/5/01, Champion, Mike wrote:
>We need to figure out whether this
>discussion is aimed at persuading the W3C to change the "system vocabulary"
>to support IDs without requiring external DTDs/Schemas, or whether it is --
>in the tradition of SAX and RDDL -- aimed at producing a convention that is
>orthogonal to the W3C's Recommendions. The former strongly suggests
>attributes, but the latter more or less demands PIs, as well as some
>"political" work to make PIs less of an endangered species.
The latter solution doesn't demand PIs. It just prevents us from
using the xml: prefix. If we wanted to be orthogonal to the W3C, then
it's easy enough to define an xid:id prefix with xid mapped to
http://xml.org/id/ or something like that. I think this has already
been suggested as a way of adding multiple IDs to things. There's no
need to get PIs involved.