- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 15:56:47 -0600
- To: <www-tag@w3.org>
At 13:45 2003 01 07 -0800, David Orchard wrote: >Another potential aspect to look at is how XPointer would deal with these >various approaches. Perhaps show how XPointer is affected by each, >particularly for bare names. For example, Option #1, #8 has the >disadvantage that it means XPointer requires DTD or Schema validation. >Option #5, #6 has the disadvantage that the XPointer parser has to look at >the xml:idattr to figure out what the id attribute name is. I don't think XPointer looks at xml:idattr any more than it looks at, say, xml:base. It looks at the infoset. All we'd have to say in a new little xml:id-ish spec is that xml:idattr adds a few pieces of information to the infoset (that, to date, only comes from the DTD), and there need be no change to XPointer. paul
Received on Tuesday, 7 January 2003 16:57:02 UTC