[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
At 08:45 AM 13/11/01 +0700, James Clark wrote:
>(a) Remove the RawName construct in XPointer
>(b) Change the semantics of the RawName construct in XPointer to say that it refers to, say, a element with a xptr:name attribute with a particular value
>(c) Add an xml:idatt(s) to XML
The longer I think about xml:idatts the less I like it, simply
because it feels wrong to add yet another declaration method/
syntax on top of what we already have in this sort of ad-hoc way,
when the problem, operationally, doesn't seem that severe. Once
again, mea culpa for pushing this grungy snowball over the
edge of the hill.
I don't understand XPointer well enough to have an intelligent
opinion about (a) or (b). Except for I'm generally in favor
of removing things :) -Tim