Bruce,
A further wrinkle: Note that text:id is defined as string not ID. I have
not checked on the others.
I will have to re-read the spec but to change the interpretation of
text:id to be ID may pose backward compatibility problems.
Hope you are looking forward to a great weekend!
Patrick
Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Patrick Durusau
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005
Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!
