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

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

Only that the xml:id attribute needs to be supported 
and probably in a wide variety of xml processors.  The 
xml namespace is the system vocabulary because XML itself 
reserves it.  If we really want it to be a looser contract, 
it should be a PI.  I don't think we do want it to be a 
loose contract.  What we have to understand is that everytime 
one of these is added:

1.  The system vocabulary expands and xml starts to look 
like rtf.  That is in principle, ok, but we have to be 
very reasonable about what we ask for.  Given XPointer, 
xml:id seems reasonable.  Yes, pre-web markup hypertext 
systems used this approach and were beat up by the 
pre-XML hypertext crowd for doing it.  It's a known.

2.  Yet expansions like that are expensive and get more 
so every time we add one because of tool churning. 
So, the idea that these architectural gaps can 
sort of "creep out" is unreasonable in the extreme. 
Again, we just end up saying "whatever MS wants is fine" 
because we are tied to a tools release schedule.  XML 
is core.  It can't perturbate wildly and interdocument 
references based on a reserved target type are even 
more fundamental:  they are doctrine, so this kind of 
thing can't lay around waiting for the opportune time 
to propose it.

If xml:id is "just a name", then change the name 
to something like "xml:label".  That will save us 
an enormous amount of explanation and misunderstanding 
with the DTD/Schema authors.  If however, this 
change is only the camel's nose, then we have to say 
no, hell no, and stop the architecture group in their 
tracks until they present the whole plan and the 
requirements that drive the plan.  Otherwise, see item 2.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@metalab.unc.edu]

Let me phrase the question this way: regarding validity and validity 
only, not the semantics of the attribute, is there any objection to 
an xml:id attribute that is not equally true of xml:base? So far I