W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > June 2006

Re: XBL 2 and xml:id

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 13:56:25 -0400
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0606271056mb7a3fe7pc6d0d2946e990e0f@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "Robin Berjon" <robin.berjon@expway.fr>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Dave Hodder" <dmh@dmh.org.uk>, public-appformats@w3.org

It doesn't seem like a big deal either way to me, but wouldn't
switching to xml:id break Mozilla's implementation?  If so, that seems
like a good reason to keep the status quo.


On 6/27/06, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2006, Robin Berjon wrote:
> >
> > The xml:id is not meant for "proprietary" languages, it's meant so that
> > you can usefully manipulate a document without having to first implement
> > a specialised DOM. When you want to do simple server-side (or otherwise
> > offline) Perl hacking, it's a killer feature. Unlike XLink it has no
> > declaration overhead (and is actually useful). It comes for free and
> > works  what more can one ask for?
> This is exactly the kind of impractical ivory-tower arguments that caused
> XBL2 to leave the W3C last time.
> There's nothing wrong with the name "id". The idea that you might need to
> manipulate XBL2 documents using Perl on the server side is crazy. Even if
> you did, XBL2, HTML, SVG, and other such languages, which are all intended
> to be "core" languages, can trivially be supported natively by your perl
> library, and don't need to use "xml:id".
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 27 June 2006 17:56:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:50:04 UTC