Hi,
my assumption is that the xml:id attribute the the advantage that it is
understood as an attribute of type ID even by applications that are not
schema aware. If that assumption is correct, then I think we should in
fact consider to add xml:id attributes.
Michael
Patrick Durusau wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
