Isn't that just a case of the application realizing it's changing one name of a pair and not leaving the other an orphan?
-----Original Message-----
From: monkeyiq [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 1:58 PM
To: John Haug
Cc:
Subject: RE: [office-collab] Possible UC7 for consideration...
On Mon, 2011-08-15 at 18:12 +0000, John Haug wrote:
> Ben: Even when the result is two begin annotation XML elements with
> the same name?
>
> My thinking here was that it is up to the application to ensure it
> doesn’t duplicate names if that’s not allowed. Same as the myriad
> other places that rule applies. Dennis points out it’s not an ID and
> doesn’t have the same kind of document validation baggage an ID would,
> though 19.376.6 does require the name must be unique for each pair of
> annotation / annotation-end. The ID question you raise sounds like
> the question your UC8 raises. That also seems to me to be a largely
> straightforward case of the app needing to be aware of names/IDs in
> use and not introduce duplicates.
One subtle difference between rewriting an xml:id and changing the begin/end name occurs to me. For the xml:id case, when making a bucket you can add new RDF to make sure the things linked to the old (existing) xml:id are linked to the new xml:id used in the bucket.
If you update the name used for the begin XML element for a bookmark or annotation then there is no longer a matching end XML element for it. So you either get two begin markers with the same name or a begin marker without an end marker.
