[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 1:19 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
> People understood XML pretty well.
Well, if you mean they understand elements, attributes, and text in a
default encoding, yes. I think most people originally grokked XML by
analogy with HTML -- "OK,it's like HTML, but a little bit more: all the tags
have to be balanced, you really do have to quote attribute values, and you
get to choose your own tagnames ..." If I'm right, they *expect* to be able
to do the other stuff you get for free in HTML, such as links.
I've been waffling on DTD internal subsets vs PIs vs namespaces as a way to
define ID-ness; I think Daniel Veillard's post finally catalyzed my opinion:
" If you put xml:id="foo" on an element then blah.xml#foo will point to it".
People who think of XML as HTML++ won't already understand DTDs, or PIs, or
a namespace that they have to declare for themselves, but if they had
xml:id, they could link to it almost exactly as they do in HTML today.
> For a lot of the common folk it's hard
> to understand what they need and what they don't:, becasue they have to
> learn everything in order to decide...
Good point ... in XML writ large, you have to know something before you know
whether you need to know it :~) The virtue of the xml:id solution is that
the people who think XML is HTML++ probably think it's there in XML already!