Re: Options for dealing with IDs

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

/ Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> was heard to say:
| The one I like best allows people to use whatever identifier they
| like, usually for the price of a single extra attribute on the rot
| element.

I understand the appeal.

I wonder if we could get support for having XML Schema remove xs:ID
from V.next (or V.next.next). I'd probably be happier with xml:idAttr
if it was the only mechanism for defining IDs.

If we're motivated to create a new mechanism because making IDness a
side-effect of validation is so broken, maybe it makes sense after the
new mechanism is invented to remove the side-effect.

I wonder when people will start wanting to have link target identity
based on key constraints rather than a flat document-wide ID space.
And I wonder what that would look like for something like XPointer.
That said, there's something unfortunate about the fact that key
constraints can't be applied on a document-wide basis independent of
the name of the root element.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

- -- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM    | If you run after wit you will succeed in
XML Standards Architect | catching folly.--Montesquieu
Web Tech. and Standards |
Sun Microsystems, Inc.  | 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQE+Gz9NOyltUcwYWjsRAmnvAKCoEpAa5k9pkS43DH2sFHbEDxzsjACffJj/
IQXfrk5ZmE6JKTUbWg4XK1k=
=aeDf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----