On Nov 10, 2006, at 10:05 AM, Dave Pawson wrote:
> I think 1.2 would be a good chance to decide if we mean xml:id
> or just another attribute.
>
> I don't think this would meet your example Bruce?
What's the referent of "this" Dave?
My understanding of xml:id is that it does indeed fullfill the need
to identify and reference document fragments, in a general and
consistent way.
But in any case, we need it to be able to support one of our use
cases, which I think implies at minimum that ids must be unique
across all the namespaces.
Might be good to consider adding xml:id in the future though.
Bruce
