Re: XBL 2 and xml:id

On Jun 22, 2006, at 22:27, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 22:05:52 +0200, Dave Hodder <dmh@dmh.org.uk>  
> wrote:
>> Would it make sense to reuse xml:id rather than having a separate  
>> id attribute in the XBL namespace?
>
> I suggest you read http://groups.google.com/group/ 
> netscape.public.mozilla.xbl/browse_thread/thread/b60a06b80cca6681/ 
> a1eb0fdb3e57897b on that topic.

I think the counter-arguments put forth in that thread don't make  
much sense, or at least are deliberately exaggerated.

Ian claims that foo.setAttributeNS('http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/ 
namespace', 'id', 'bar') is more work than the non-NS version. That's  
true, but for accessing something as common as the ID of an element,  
I'd expect to have a .id field, not to have to work all the way  
through .setAttribute (NS or not).

I don't buy the argument that in the markup it makes a diff to the  
user whether it's xml:id or just id. If it were xml:this-is-the- 
bloody-ID-of-the-element I'd see the point, but not here. If that is  
meant to be a genuine argument, then the element names that were  
chosen are clearly way too long! Can't we please just have bind,  
impl, tpl, cnt, inh, res...?

The xml:id is not meant for "proprietary" languages, it's meant so  
that you can usefully manipulate a document without having to first  
implement a specialised DOM. When you want to do simple server-side  
(or otherwise offline) Perl hacking, it's a killer feature. Unlike  
XLink it has no declaration overhead (and is actually useful). It  
comes for free and works — what more can one ask for?

-- 
Robin Berjon
    Senior Research Scientist
    Expway, http://expway.com/

Received on Tuesday, 27 June 2006 11:15:47 UTC