[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
On Monday 12 November 2001 03:48 pm, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> Well the DTD is data also, and I was assuming the context of my earlier
> post when I suggested that IDs can be provided in XML documents via
> internal subsets.
I think DTD's and documents, even with internal subsets, to be different
> The point is that XML IDs are identifiers which are
> defined in XML 1.0 and do not depend at all on application specific
They always depend on application semantics. The only thing XML 1.0 does is
says that they nust be unique in a valid document.
> Actually one cannot simply use whatever syntax one pleases for a fragment
> id. To be conformant to RFC 2396, i.e. to be a "URI" as defined in 2396,
> the fragment id must be constructed according to RFC 2396 and the
> appropriate media type. _Assuming_ XPointer is accepted as the relevent
> syntax for application/xml, text/xml, then a Raw Name is one of the 3
> syntaxes specified in XPointer, the others being ChildSeq and Full
Right. Given that XPointer has not *yet* been accepted, and that RFC 2396
explicitly states that no syntax has yet been decided upon, it is still
perfectly possible to define a syntax.
FWIW. The RawName syntax in XLink is there for XHTML/HTML compatability only.
As I've said, I think that's a bogus rationale for having something that can
cause serious interoperability issues, and which is forcing people to examine
other mechanisms for grandfathering the semantics because the underlying
mechanism is unreliable.