Re: xml:id versus xmlid

Elliotte Harold writes:

> Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> If I were to take the time to produce a list of existing APIs and
> tools in which that work has not been done, would this convince you to
> support xmlid instead of xml:id?

No, because that work _still_ needs to be done, and should be done,
because there's no chance xml:lang, xml:space and xml:base will be
rolled back.

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]