W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms@w3.org > April 2006

Re: Thoughts about editorial note id() in XForms 1.1

From: Allan Beaufour <beaufour@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 14:20:29 +0200
Message-ID: <90d6cb0e0604040520p4ce64a1bge87285ac0a277857@mail.gmail.com>
To: "David Landwehr" <david.landwehr@solidapp.com>
Cc: www-forms@w3.org

On 4/4/06, David Landwehr <david.landwehr@solidapp.com> wrote:
> Allan Beaufour wrote:
> > On 4/3/06, Nick_Van_den_Bleeken@inventivedesigners.com
> > <Nick_Van_den_Bleeken@inventivedesigners.com> wrote:
> >> 2) What would it mean if an xsd:ID type were assigned directly to the
> >> element's content by an xsi:type attribute or a schema?
> >>
> >> If you read 3.3.8 ID of the 'XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes Second Edition'
> >> : "... For compatibility (see Terminology (1.4)) ID should be used only
> >> on attributes."
> >>
> >> Therefore I think this should be discouraged in our spec, or left
> >> Implementation dependant
> >>
> >
> > Hmm, that is unfortunate. So, yes at least we should discourage that.
> >
>
> I think that the backwards compatibility is about DTDs and since XForms
> does not rely much on DTDs but a lot on XML Schema it should be
> perfectly valid (and expected) that someone would want to assign xsd:ID
> to an element and then use the id function to retrieve it. So I think
> this should not be discourage nor should it be left implementation
> dependent. Even though XML Schema discourage assigning IDs to anything
> but attributes then the behavior is still well defined and must work
> across schema validators.

Ok, ff DTDs are the reason for backwards compatibility, I guess it
makes sense for us to relax that constraint.

--
... Allan
Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2006 12:20:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:22:03 GMT