Re: FW: W3C XML ID ambiguity

On Friday, April 22, 2005, 10:22:12 PM, Elliotte wrote:

EH> xml:id is in fact not parallel to xml:space and xml:lang. It has 
EH> different inheritance behavior, and therefore should not be treated the
EH> same. There is significance to the shift from xml:id to xmlid, and no
EH> one has to look too deeply to find it. xmlid was chosen over xml:id (or
EH> should be chosen) simply because it is qualitatively different from 
EH> xml:space and xml:lang. It applies to a single element rather than that
EH> element's entire subtree.

I would describe an unwarranted assumption that all xml:* attributes are inherited
to be more of an ungodly mess, myself.

EH> What the Boeing folks have pointed out (that xmlid is much easier to
EH> handle in namespace-aware processors than xml:id because it doesn't 
EH> require any special casing) is yet another reason to prefer xmlid to xml:id.

Neither should xml:id. Its clearly in the xml namespace and is clearly
thus reserved.

EH> The only reason to use xml:id is an adamant belief that all names should
EH> have colons in them. Namespaces have long since been recognized as an
EH> ungodly mess and an ugly kludge. It's well past time we stopped 
EH> enforcing that kludge on every new spec despite very good reasons to go
EH> down a different path.

Sure, if you don't mind a few years of churn and if you have something
better.





-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead