- From: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 18:35:33 +0200
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Rick Jelliffe wrote:
>
>
> !> From: Martin Bryan <mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com>
>
> !> For the time being I would suggest that XML simply removes ID as a class of
> !> names and recommends that users use of a CDATA called id, and applies an
> !> XML-specific semantic requiring uniqueness of values for this attribute
> !> within a document.
>
> I think "id" would be a bad element name, since it goes against the
> HyTime practise of "id" being "ID". I have used quite a few DTDs that
> use id as CDATA, and it is frustrating and works against my
> expectations.
>
> I suggest, if we must have them
>
> XML-ID CDATA
> XML-IDREF CDATA
I prefer "ID". "XML-ID" is too long.
The name "ID" is only reserved when it is an attribute.
I don't think we need to say anything about elements
that are named "ID," whether they go against expectations
or not.
"IDREF" is not necessary, "HREF" does the job already.
>
> I don't think we can have XML-IDS and XML-IDREFs without constraing the
> CDATA in some way. I still think it is a bad idea, because it allows
> obfuscated markup, which is a great sin. Sure, it may clarify some
> things too.
I don't think we'll need IDS, and IDREFS are handled with xlinks:
<xlink><x href="#1"/><x href="#2"/><x href="#3"/>...
(A bit verbose, I admit, but it avoids having to reserve any special
delimiters.)
Bert
Received on Monday, 30 June 1997 12:35:37 UTC