RE: XBL 2 and xml:id

Hi, Ian-

I am not very concerned about "xml:id" vs. "id".  It does seem to me at
first glance that having something that is known to be of type ID across
languages would be easier to deal with for authors, but I am not going to
get hung up on that.  I do want to clarify a general argument you have been
making, though.

Ian Hickson wrote:
|  
| It requires authors to understand two specs instead of one.
<snip />
| It requires authors to understand why they can use xml:id on 
| XBL but not  on HTML, or, if implementations support 
| both in HTML, why in HTML they can have two IDs but they  
| can only have one in XBL.

The 2 points above (non-exhaustively) exemplify the argument that we can
somehow sheild the author from learning about namespaces. Whether or not
namespaces are the ideal mechanism for disambiguating nodes, they are a
reality of XML today, and I can't see them going away soon.

XBL2 is about binding multiple languages together.  I would be very
surprised if the authors who are going to be using XBL2 will struggle with
the concept of namespaces.  If they don't already know about them, and how
they are used, they are certainly going to have to learn them in order to
effectively author XBL2 documents.  The idea that you can use XBL without
dealing with multiple specifications and languages is an oxymoron.

Let's not underestimate authors in what they know or what they are able to
learn.  XBL2 is rather advanced stuff, and isn't going to be used by people
posting poodle pictures, but rather by those making advanced sites that need
maximum potential in their language.

Again, this doesn't necessarily have a direct bearing on "xml:id", it's just
an argument I wanted to nip in the bud.

Regards-
Doug

doug.schepers@vectoreal.com
www.vectoreal.com ...for scalable solutions.

Received on Wednesday, 5 July 2006 06:47:22 UTC