W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > September 2000

ID= attributes

From: Graham Klyne <gk-lists@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:09:07 +0100
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000929160552.00bbb610@pop.dial.pipex.com>
To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
I've noted some similar concerns when trying to carry RDF in a protocol 
element rather than a named document.  I'm not sure of the best way out -- 
one thought I have is to use xml:base in such circumstances to resolve any 
ambiguities.

#g
--

At 10:10 AM 9/29/00 -0400, Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote:
>I have a suspicion, not carefully considered, that ID= attributes can
>cause problems when XML is used as a generalized container for other XML.
>For example, let's consider the case where your e-mail has several
>attachments, each of them XML, and they make conflicting use of the same
>ID names.  As best I can tell, you can work around this as long as you're
>careful about what you validate and how, but as I say, I suspect there are
>some messy edge conditions here.  Certainly there are likely to be
>problems with any tools that take the container document as a whole and
>try to blindly interpret ID attributes.
>
>I have had this same concern for SOAP, for example, insofar as it serves
>as a generalized packaging framework for assembling XML messages.  Not a
>fatal problem, I think, but probably something that deserves a bit of
>thought.

------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                       Content Technologies Ltd.
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 29 September 2000 11:15:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:57 GMT