Re: xml:id versus xmlid

[removing Core -- no reason to clutter mailboxes]

Having maintained and developed a large Java XML API for some years, I
agree that the xml namespace and prefix require special casing.  That
special casing took work.  That work is done.  The marginal cost of
supporting xml:id given that the work has been done is tiny.

The conceptual overhead of explaining that global attributes are
namespace-prefixed, except when they're spelled 'x m l i d', seems to
me _much_ more costly when averaged over all likely users, than the
cost of getting xml: right when averaged over all developers.

I don't think the case for changing this holds up.

ht
-- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]