- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 13:56:25 -0400
- To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: "Robin Berjon" <robin.berjon@expway.fr>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Dave Hodder" <dmh@dmh.org.uk>, public-appformats@w3.org
It doesn't seem like a big deal either way to me, but wouldn't switching to xml:id break Mozilla's implementation? If so, that seems like a good reason to keep the status quo. Mark. On 6/27/06, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > 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 17:56:40 UTC