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

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

That's a fair question.  Earlier in this thread I said 
that the term "xml processor" was quite vague.  Is it 
the parser, something a parser talks to what?  In either 
case, does it have to be cognizant of xml: and any name 
that follows that?  Where does awareness of xml: have 
to be implemented?

The question is really "is an id or a name being proposed"?
SGML didn't require IDs of type ID or even CDATA to be 
targets of hyperlinks.  It didn't have a concept for 
hyperlink:  just unique IDs and a requirement for 
IDREFs to have a target of type ID.  If as you say, 
this architectural fix is for a hyperlink target, 
then an ID isn't required.  Never was for any system 
even before the web.  Some SGMLers did use IDs for that 
but for a practical reason:  the parser would tell us 
if the target was unique.  Otherwise, we used namelocs 
and application logic to validate.   A nameloc, a hyperlink 
target, can be implemented per application.  In this 
case, it doesn't need to be in the xml: namespace and 
in fact, can be anything the application developers pick. 
So far, there is no compelling reason for it to be either 
Tim or James' proposed solutions.  So far, the needy thing 
is XPointer.  So in the end, perhaps the processor that 
has to care is not an xml processor at all.  

There is no gaping hole in the web architecture.  There 
is the lack of a standard fragment name.  Now you have 
to decide if that includes uniqueness.  And you are back 
to square one.

Without a clear requirement, there is no work to be done.

len



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

Just so we're clear on what we're talking about, when you write "xml 
processors" do you mean XML processor as defined in the XML 1.0 
specification, and which common usage calls a parser? e.g. Xerces-J 
or expat? or are you talking about something more general?