- From: David G. Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
- Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 11:23:08 -0400
- To: W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
I never understood why I needed more than one unique identifier for an element: that's why the SGMl syntax never bothered me. If Eve and Lee both think it's useful, I'll defer to their judgement (though I'd love an example). If we are going to do that, I like Lee's prefix proposal: We could have attributes named id.attrname and idref.attrname. Making ID attributes self-identifying in this way, and turning them into an application convention, removes another problem from ID as specified: the restricted syntax. We can declare XML IDs as CDATA "with an interpretation" and make users much happier. Martin's comment about rude words is a problem, but not one that I can see how to solve, as we will need _some_ fixed string. ensuring non-rudeness in any natural language would proabably also insure meanininglessness all around, too. -- David RE delenda est. _________________________________________ David Durand dgd@cs.bu.edu \ david@dynamicDiagrams.com Boston University Computer Science \ Sr. Analyst http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ \ Dynamic Diagrams --------------------------------------------\ http://dynamicDiagrams.com/ MAPA: mapping for the WWW \__________________________ http://www.dynamicdiagrams.com/services_map_main.html
Received on Friday, 18 October 1996 11:23:11 UTC