On 10/11/06, 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?
Your use of id='1'
which is invalid DTD wise, I'm far less certain in xml schema and relax.
>
> 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.
Yes, and not too far in the future!
It seems silly to be using 4 or 5 namespaces?
Uniqueness is a separable issue (especially if the user
is generating id values.
regards
--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
