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

["Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>]

Mike,

Not all unique keys or fragment identifiers need to be XML IDs. Indeed XML
Schema (and XSLT?) define the notion of keys. Similarly XPointer provides
for more than rawname fragment identifiers. Why need PIs?

Jonathan


>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@mediaone.net]
> > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 3:00 PM
> > To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org; Christopher R. Maden
> > Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Re: determining ID-ness in XML
> >
> >
> >
> > So yes, you can shoot yourself in the head, but doing so is not
> > recommended :-)
>
> I completely agree.  BUT there is one use case where well-formed id-ness
> declarations might be useful where this argument doesn't apply --
middleware
> of some sort (SOAP-like processor, database, whatever) might find it
useful
> to declare the id-ness of unique key atttributes that it puts in to the
XML
> stream or infoset pipeline or whatever.  *IF* this were done with PIs,
that
> wouldn't break DTD validation.
>
> I'm not convinced that this is a compelling reason to use PIs rather than
> namespaces to declare id-nesss, but I do hope that it is taken into
> consideration.
>
> What are the real, tangible downsides of using a PI for this?  "The W3C
> doesn't like PIs because they looked ugly in the Level 3 browsers" is
> presumably not a tangible downside anymore, IMHO.  I guess one is that XML
> processors are not required to pass on PIs (right? or is it just that many
> early implementations didn't).... and it's problematic to have them
survive
> an XSLT transformation ... any others?
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>