- From: Martin Bryan <mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 14:14:58 +0100
- To: <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
At 18:09 19/6/97 +0700, James Clark wrote: >> with no id conflict between the two 'p1' IDs. The protected one could >> be ref'd from outside as 'localids:p1'. > >I'm not sure I agree with this. I can easily imagine wanting to combine >element whose types come from different namespaces but have them share one >ID namespace. I'm not at all sure it makes sense to bind the ID namespace >to the element type namespace. The problem is how to ensure uniqueness of ids when you are cutting and pasting things from different documents produced with different DTDs. We need something that is as easy to generate in this case as HTML anchor names (which are deliberately not unique) if we are to attract a wide range of authors to XML. Scoping ids in the same way that you scope element names within a qualified name in Henry's proposal might make it easier to avoid conflicts (though by no means certain!) Whilst you might then want to enforce uniqueness in the result as a system constraint it should not be enforced by dictate. AsBernhard Weichel pointed out: > Reusing instance fragments should be possible with out renaming all >elements, > so a GI mangling approach isnīt helpful. > ---- Martin Bryan, 29 Oldbury Orchard, Churchdown, Glos. GL3 2PU, UK Phone/Fax: +44 1452 714029 E-mail: mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com For details about The SGML Centre contact http://www.sgml.u-net.com/ For details about the Open Information Interchange initiative contact http://www.echo.lu/oii/home.html
Received on Thursday, 19 June 1997 09:16:12 UTC