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

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

From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@mediaone.net]

>Certainly, but let's examine this: We define an "ID" as an XML 1.0 ID
_which
>is only defined by a DTD_. A "nameloc" is ? a general way of defining an
>_identitier_. If so then "xml:id" does not define an "ID" rather a
>"nameloc".

Yes.  Change the name to something other than id to keep the confusion 
down.  Overloading names is bad in spec writing.  Make it a nameloc and I am

a happy camper.  Now you have to pick a way to declare namelocs. PIs 
work.  Internal subsets work.  Industry conventions sort of work.

>> Not without a bounded scope, Jonathan.  The days
>> of the freedom of the XML core groups to obscure
>> by misdirection such notions are over.  Never Another
>> "Namespace Is Just A Disambiguating String" ploy.

>He, he, you believed that? :-)

Not for a minute.

>> All requirements up front, clear, and signed.
>> Otherwise, no change.  It costs too much to
>> allow the children to play in the design these days.

>Similarly it costs too much _not_ to move forward when real problems need
to
>be solved. In a perfect world world we would all know our requirements,
have
>the same requirements, and agree on the solutions to these requirements. 

We did know.  ISO 8879 and ISO 10744. 

len