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

/ Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> was heard to say:
|> |> > 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.
|
| I have marked your request as a potential formal objection.

Although I failed to close the loop before the Director's decision
call for XBL 2.0, the XML Core Working Group would like to be
identified as formally objecting to the resolution of the "id"
attribute issue.

Thank you, in advance, for any additional consideration that you can
give to this issue.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Always code as if the guy who ends up
http://nwalsh.com/            | maintaining your code will be a violent
                              | psychopath who knows where you
                              | live.--M. Golding