Re: Last call comments on XML Binding Language (XBL) 2.0

/ Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> was heard to say:
| On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Norman Walsh wrote:
|> |> 
|> |> Section 1.4.7 speaks of the per-element partition of attribute names. 
|> |> This is, I think, a holdover from the first edition of Namespaces in 
|> |> XML. We suggest that it be updated to the terminology in the latest 
|> |> Namespaces REC.
|> |
|> | I couldn't work out exactly what the new terminology was from the 
|> | Namespces in XML spec, but I've tried to fix the spec. Please let me know 
|> | if it is acceptable.
|> 
|> Could you please remind me where the updated draft is located?
|
| Apologies, I should have included the link in the original reply. You can 
| find the editor's draft here:
|
|    http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/xbl2/Overview.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#extension

I'm entirely satisfied by your changes to 1.4.7. Thank you.

|> |> > 2.16. The id Attribute of XBL Elements
|> |> 
|> |> There is, of course, a historical preceding for naming attributes of 
|> |> type ID "id". However, we recommend that the attribute of type ID in XBL 
|> |> 2.0 be spelled "xml:id".
|> |
|> | I don't understand. Could you elaborate on why you recommend making the 
|> | attribute name longer?
|> 
|> Because it will allow XML processes to recognize that the attributes are 
|> of type ID without relying on external information such as DTDs and 
|> schemas. See http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-id/#intro
|
| Why would this single feature be worthy of discoverability when the entire 
| rest of the XBL processing model requires the UA to have built-in 
| knowledge? I understand that xml:id would be very appropropriate and an 
| important feature of proprietary languages, but I don't understand why it 
| would have any benefits in the context of a language that is only useful 
| in conjunction with UA-native support and that is intended to be used as 
| a well-known standard language on the Web.

Over time, web technologies are often used and reused in ways that the
original inventors did not forsee. Migrating away from
vocabulary-specific ID attributes that can only be recognized by the
presence of some external information (that may or may not be present
or convenient in some future application) to ID attributes that can be
recognized simply by their spelling makes this reuse a tiny bit
easier.

Consequently, I think it is good general practice to spell ID
attributes "xml:id" unless there is a compelling reason to spell them
some other way.

I haven't heard any compelling arguments why XBL should spell it "id".

Conversely, I get the impression that you haven't found any arguments
to spell it "xml:id" compelling either.

| I have marked your request as a potential formal objection.

I doubt that it will come to that, but thank you for leaving the door
open. I will ask the WGs for whom I reviewed the document if they feel
strongly enough about the issue to make that objection.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
XML Standards Architect
Sun Microsystems, Inc.