W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2005

Re: Significant W3C Confusion over Namespace Meaning and Policy

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:06:58 -0500
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-id: <877jl75fx9.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com> was heard to say:
| IMO, the addition of xml:id warrants a new (minor) version increment
| of the XML model.

I'm not actually sure what that means as I'm not sure where "the XML
model" is defined.

| Applications which support previous versions should disregard terms
| not specified as employed by the version they utilize; and applications
| which are updated to support the new version will utilize the new
| terms such as xml:id appropriately.

Since we've come back around to xml:id, let's look at it (apologies
if I've said this already).

1. If you've got validation turned on, you have to declare xml:id,
   so it's just like any other attribute. There's nothing that has
   to be incremented here.

2. If you've got validation turned off, whether xml:id is an ID or
   just an attribute will depend on whether or not some part of your
   parsing stack does xml:id processing (as defined by xml:id).
   This means some applications will recognize it as an ID and some
   won't. This is exactly like the situation that already exists today
   with attributes declared as IDs in the external subset. So I don't
   think anything has to be incremented here.

But over time, the addition of xml:id will allow the amount of
variability in the second case to decrease, maybe eventually to
disappear altogether.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

Received on Thursday, 17 February 2005 16:07:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:32 GMT