On Tue, 27 Jun 2006, Robin Berjon wrote: > > 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? This is exactly the kind of impractical ivory-tower arguments that caused XBL2 to leave the W3C last time. There's nothing wrong with the name "id". The idea that you might need to manipulate XBL2 documents using Perl on the server side is crazy. Even if you did, XBL2, HTML, SVG, and other such languages, which are all intended to be "core" languages, can trivially be supported natively by your perl library, and don't need to use "xml:id". -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 27 June 2006 17:34:03 UTC