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

RE: Why no id attribute in common attributes?

From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 09:39:18 -0700
To: "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>
Cc: "Kelly Miller" <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>, www-forms@w3.org, www-forms-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF36D266B0.3A4EF9F3-ON88257177.005A3C36-88257177.005B7E43@ca.ibm.com>
Hi Leigh,

Since it is not the case that xml:id deprecated the use of ID type 
attributes, the question arises:

If an XML vocabulary describes an ID attribute and XML itself describes an 
ID attribute, which one do you put?

This is the same question as the one you asked below about xhtml:id versus 
xforms:id.  And the answer is that
it doesn't really matter.  XML does not say that you can't have two 
*possible* attributes of type ID.  It only says
that you can't have two *actual* attributes of type ID.

This is part of why I believe that the argument against declaring an id in 
common attributes holds no water.

Moreover, the question of xhtml:id versus xforms:id is a bit of a tangent 
because what I'd like to do is
have the id attribute be in the Per-Element-Type partition, not the Global 
Attribute partition.  This means
one would write id as an unqualified attribute, not as one qualified by a 
namespace prefix.

This is the other part of why I believe there is no good argument against 
declaring an id in XForms common attributes.

Authors want to be able to write id="X" rather than xhtml:id="X".  In 
particular, it is the desire to reduce namespace
qualification that is causing us to want to import the XForms vocabulary 
into the XHTML2 namespace.  Forcing
XForms authors to namespace qualify their ID attributes works against this 
goal.

Best regards,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
Senior Product Architect/Research Scientist
Co-Chair, W3C XForms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com  http://www.ibm.com/software/

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer





"Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com> 
Sent by: www-forms-request@w3.org
05/19/2006 03:55 PM

To
John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA, "Kelly Miller" <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>
cc
<www-forms@w3.org>, <www-forms-request@w3.org>
Subject
RE: Why no id attribute in common attributes?






xml:id *came* from XForms.  You might recall it was proposed by Steven 
Pemberton at the San Diego F2F Halloween 2000.
 
    Steven Pemberton: Let's create a draft for xml:id.
    Leigh Klotz: We're all having trouble with it; let's all be authors.
    Steven Pemberton: OK. We cannot put DTDs in external instances in 
XForms, so there is no way to declare ID attributes on them.
    Resolution 2002-11-21.2: We create a draft for xml:id to help ease 
problems with XForms integration.
The rationale for leaving it out is not flimsy; it has everything to do 
with namespaces. 
If XHTML describes an id called xhtml:id and xforms describes and id 
called xforms:id, and XML says you can't have two ID attributes on the 
same element, which one do you put?
 
Leigh.

From: www-forms-request@w3.org [mailto:www-forms-request@w3.org] On Behalf 
Of John Boyer
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 10:05 AM
To: Kelly Miller
Cc: www-forms@w3.org; www-forms-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: Why no id attribute in common attributes?


Hi Kelly, 

Not really. 
In fact, I've raised the issue again exactly because of the xml:id 
recommendation. 

Fact is, I don't necessarily want to type xml:id all over the place, so 
having an id available 
is highly desirable.   

As I recall, the rationale for leaving it out was kind of flimsy.  I 
believe the thinking was that 
the host document format might want to be in control of the naming 
convention for IDs 
throughout the document. 

I think xml:id breaks that. 

The other possibility was that the above might be needed to ensure that 
our declaration 
of an id attribute didn't conflict with declarations needed by the host 
language if they 
were trying to control ID-ness uniformly in some way.  However, this seems 
to confuse 
the notion of having more than one possible ID attribute with actually 
declaring more than 
one ID attribute, only the latter of which is non-valid. 

And again, xml:id itself provides the possibility but not the reality of a 
second ID attribute. 

Finally, notwithstanding the problems, it still doesn't seem very 
compelling compared to 
not having an id attribute automatically available in the content model, 
esp. since we declare 
so many IDREFs in the schema. 

Cheers, 
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
Senior Product Architect/Research Scientist
Co-Chair, W3C XForms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com  http://www.ibm.com/software/

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer




Kelly Miller <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com> 
Sent by: www-forms-request@w3.org 
05/19/2006 04:52 AM 


To
John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA 
cc
www-forms@w3.org 
Subject
Re: Why no id attribute in common attributes?









-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Does leaving this out have something to do with the xml:id Recommendation?

John Boyer wrote:
| The XForms schema makes lots of attributes of type xsd:IDREF, but
| Common Attributes appears to be missing the following:
|
|     <xsd:attribute name="id" type="xsd:ID" use="optional"/>
|
| Rather than forcing every host language to add this attribute to the
| schema, an XForms 1.0 erratum should add this to the XForms schema.
|
| The argument that the host language may want to have its own uniform
| way of assigning identities does not seem to hold water, esp. given
| xml:id.
|
| John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
| Senior Product Architect/Research Scientist
| Co-Chair, W3C XForms Working Group
| Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
| IBM Victoria Software Lab
| E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com  http://www.ibm.com/software/
|
| Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
|
|

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEbbGDvCLXx0V8XHQRAmb+AKCeubPK+1qNn3mB8bJOAnW8mJWTlACgqsox
4Ac1eawEzT7E+de5vANhX5w=
=RN2D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 23 May 2006 16:39:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:22:04 GMT