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

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

The real truth is that every time the spec perturbates, 
a large rippling cost runs across the industry. 
A simple name is not an ID.  If that is what you 
need, there are plenty of examples of how to put 
one in an application language without requiring 
a formal system vocabulary extension.  DTDs are a 
formal part of XML, and if libxml breaks that or 
ignores it, that is a design management problem. 

Give the nationalist rhetoric a break.  This isn't 
the place of it.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Veillard [mailto:veillard@redhat.com]

On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 02:26:29PM -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> That is one explanation.   However:
> 
> 1.  No one has stated a requirement that the name actually 
> be an ID.  A name will do.  (see elliotte).  If a 
> name will do, this is a nameloc and there is not a gaping 
> hole in the architecture.

  The requirement is to be able to use a simple name for the fragment
identifier. There is an implicit requirement for compatibility
reason with the only widely fragment identifier syntax deployed (text/html)
and because since 1.0 was release *everybody* expected #foo to 
point to the ID foo (or the first ID of name foo in the document order
if you take the XPath viewpoint). If you break either of those
you miss the 80/20 usercase sweet spot.

> 2.  If that is not the case, and it must be an ID, then 
> what the xml:id proposal does is begin to marginalize 
> the use of DTDs.

  The fact that it is needed is an explicit acknoledgement that
DTDs are *already* marginalized. (For the record, Libxml parsing mode
defaults to well formedness, won't read the external subset, won't
fetch the DTD by default, I have yet to receive a *single* complaint
about this being the default. To me it is the proof that at least most
of the users of my toolkit, when they use it for simple XML processing
do not dare to run the parser in validating mode.)

> Otherwise, no change.  It costs too much to 
> allow the children to play in the design these days.

  You're so pedantic when you imply that you hold the REAL TRUTH,
I have the feeling I'm listening CNN from here (France).