- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 09:23:03 -0500
- To: www-xml-blueberry-comments@w3.org
Here, I am forwarding my response to Chris Lilley's suggestion to the Blueberry comments list. Paul Grosso. >Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 09:17:11 -0500 >To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>,Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> >From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com> >Subject: Re: Prototype XHTML 2.0 DTD with partial XLink support (was > Re: What are the advantages of using XLink?) >Cc: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>,w3c-html-wg@w3.org, > HTML CG <w3c-html-cg@w3.org>,w3c-xml-cg@w3.org > >At 03:59 2001 07 19 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote: >>Steven Pemberton wrote: >>> >>> > Another headache is fragment identifiers. Mozilla / Netscape 6 treat >>> > IDs in XML documents as fragment identifiers, on the other hand, >>> > since they don't fetch external DTDs, they don't know which attribute >>> > is of type ID :-< So, in general, fragment identifiers are defunct >>> > in XML documents. > >>It is particularly annoying to have to have 50 or so <!ATTLIST whatever >>id ID #IMPLIED> where whatever is replaced by every element in the >>current namespace, given that it is common practice to allow an ID on >>anything. >> >>So given that the apparent solution employed in XML 1.0 - just define it >>in the internal DTD subset which has to be parsed anyway - does not seem >>to be either popular or practical, I would like to see xml:id added to >>XML Blueberry since it would still serve a very useful purpose. > >fwiw, this was discussed during the original XML development and >decided against. But I agree that we can re-evaluate the decision. >However, we are trying to avoid opening the gates to feature expansion >in Blueberry. Instead, we have defined it to have a very limited scope. >So, while I will forward your request to the Blueberry requirements >comment list, I'm not sure the WG will agree to include it. (But you >should certainly make your case.) > >However, I would make a different proposal. Rather than adding yet >another magic attribute (which have their own problems, both in dealing >with them in the DOM and Infoset as well as getting them into implementations), >I would suggest we add some syntax to attribute declarations (which already >exists in the Web Annex of the SGML standard!) to allow the declaration >of attributes on all elements. Then the single line: > <!ATTLIST #ALL id ID #IMPLIED> >could be added to the internal subset--which already has to be read and >processed by all XML processors--and all elements would have the desired >id attribute. This allows the added flexibility of naming the id attribute >anything the user wants, and it has the added benefit that all implementations >have to do is add recognition of the "#ALL" part, and the rest of things fall >into place. And the DOM and Infoset need not change at all.
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2001 10:25:22 UTC