W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: [VoiceXML 2.1 CR comment] Depreciate vxml:id in favour of xml:id?

From: Max Froumentin <mf@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:09:41 +0100
To: Dave Hodder <dmh@dmh.org.uk>
Cc: www-voice@w3.org
Message-ID: <87d5qovs1m.fsf@w3.org>

Dave Hodder <dmh@dmh.org.uk> writes:

> Just a suggestion, feel free to ignore.

We strive to not let good suggestions ignored ;-)

> In the latest SVG 1.2 Working Drafts, use of the 'xml:id' attribute is 
> being encouraged over SVG's own 'id' attribute.  (The old 'id' hasn't 
> been removed altogether, however, in order to maintain backwards 
> compatibility.)

I think I'd rather wait to see how SVG sorts out the situation...
VoiceXML (just like SVG) would need to retain the 'id' attribute for
backwards compatibility. As far as I know, SVG hasn't sorted out how
this works with the DOM, with unicity of IDs, etc.

> Similiarly I believe the next draft of XHTML 2.0 will utilise xml:id, 
> yet have *no* native 'id' attribute.

I checked, but haven't seen it. 'id' is still there though.

> Is there still time for VoiceXML 2.1 to support this convergence to xml:id?
>
> I appreciate that xml:id has not yet moved out of CR 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/CR-xml-id-20050208/>, but still thought it 
> was worth raising.

So far VoiceXML has refrained from moving to [full] IRIs, XML1.1, and
XML Schema 1.1. Mainly for the reason 2.1 is just a delta and should
remain "strongly compatible" with 2.0. I would expect the same
reasoning be apply to xml:id. But I expect the WG will definitely
consider xml:id and the rest when designing newer specs of the voice
interface framework.

Max.
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2005 16:08:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 October 2006 12:49:01 GMT