[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xml-dev] So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.

To: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@rbii.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:38:32 -0500
In-reply-to: <02fb01c16c8e$dd5b7980$b200a8c0@c249486a>
Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
References: <E163Qf2-0008CL-00@server2000.ebizhostingsolutions.com> <E163lFJ-0006Xl-00@server2000.ebizhostingsolutions.com> <02fb01c16c8e$dd5b7980$b200a8c0@c249486a>

On Tuesday 13 November 2001 05:02 pm, Evan Lenz wrote:
> I believe that you're splitting hairs. Please recognize that his statement
> is true on some level--that there's a distinction to be made between IDs
> and IDREFs which are defined in XML 1.0, and other methods of reference
> which are specific to applications of XML, such as XLink.

I'm not splitting hairs here. Even ID/IDREF require an application to 
interpret them...

References:
- Re: [xml-dev] So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
  - From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@rbii.com>
- Re: [xml-dev] So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
  - From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@rbii.com>
- Re: [xml-dev] So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
  - From: "Evan Lenz" <elenz@xyzfind.com>

Prev by Date: Re: [xml-dev] So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
Next by Date: Re: [xml-dev] IDs considered harmful or why keys might bebetterthanIDs...
Previous by thread: Re: [xml-dev] So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
Next by thread: Re: [xml-dev] So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread