[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)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, email@example.com
- Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 09:02:49 -0600
They are labels. ID means ID when used in a DTD or
Schema. Pushing back the other way dilutes the
industrial strength definitions. Would
it not be better when using that convention to
add new functions: ourLabel(), getElementByOurLabel()?
XML 1.0, SGML, etc. are not broken.
There is a "gaping hole" in XPointer
XPointer is encumbered anyway. Let it die. ;-)
From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> In fact, those aren't
> IDs at all; just labels and any name will do.
Well, they're ID's for the purposes of XPath id(), DOM getElementById(),
Xpointer, etc. implementations that follow the proposed convention, but
they're just labels as far as SGML/XSDL are concerned. Those that need the
reliability will choose the industrial strength solution; those that just
need something to link to can use the RDDL-ish convention.