W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2002

Re: IDREF vs HREF for graph edges in SOAP encoding

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:49:14 -0000
Message-ID: <005401c19e9c$f91dc890$807ba8c0@greyarea>
To: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Cc: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "XML dist app" <xml-dist-app@w3c.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>
Cc: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>; "XML dist app"
<xml-dist-app@w3c.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: IDREF vs HREF for graph edges in SOAP encoding


> Only if one wanted to leverage the internal subset,
> other than that, you could treat them in the same
> manner as href and id.

Sorry, this may be the context I'm missing. Are we saying that we will use
attributes with local names of ID and IDREF rather than attributes with type
of ID and IDREF? If the former then we don't need DTD/schema processing but
at the same time I guess I'm not entirely sure what the difference is
between ID/IDREF and id/href. If the latter then surely we need DTD/schema
processing to determine which attributes are of type ID/IDREF

> It would certainly be much
> more convenient for implementations that did choose
> to leverage DTD processing.

This leads me to think we're talking about type rather than local name

> Given that we're talking
> about encoding, which leverages XML Schema types, it
> is pretty clear to me that we're also imposing schema
> processing anyway, no?

My understanding is that our spec specifically states that schema processing
MUST NOT be required.

Gudge
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 09:50:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT