Re: MicroXML design goals

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>wrote:

> > If you remove xml:base and xml:id, I think coverage of the other two in
> > John's draft is less than half a page.  It's hard to see that as an
> > excessive complication.
>
> Again I don't see the need for xml:base and xml:id, both are
> application level for me.
>

Fair enough. Multiple perspectives on this are not surprising.



> In fact it annoys me when xml:id is used because it imposes the spec's
> concept of an id... for example I might want to use '12345' for an id,
> or a phone number etc.
>

xml:id is really for really low-level IDs, which don't strike me as what
you mean. i guess it's like ANSI sequences in SQL. If you ever want to
escape from those constraints in what you consider to be an ID, then your
concept is probably not at low enough level.  DBAs express that as IDs
without business context.  At any rate, it's almost always a trivial
mapping from low-level, constrained IDs to higher-level ID concepts such as
phone number or SSN.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                       http://uche.ogbuji.net
Founding Partner, Zepheira        http://zepheira.com
http://wearekin.org
http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/uogbuji/
http://copia.ogbuji.net
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji
http://twitter.com/uogbuji