- From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@translate.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:48:55 -0600
- To: <public-i18n-its@w3.org>
Hi all, I'm working on my AI (http://www.w3.org/International/its/track/actions/21) One of the change to do is: > We should align this formulation > "Your DTD or schema should provide xml:id (or an equivalent mechanism)" > with BP 9, e.g. like: > "Your DTD or schema should provide xml:id (or a different attribute to > be of type ID)" I would tend to disagree: why be more specific in this Author BP than the others? In BP 15, 16 and 17 are not specific about what exactly means 'equivalent'. The authors don't really give a vole's pattouti about what are the specifics of the equivalent mechanism (or of xml:id for that matter). They just want to have a corresponding mechanism. If they want to know what a unique ID should look like, they just need to refer to the BP 9 (to which there is a link in the same sentence). ...or am I being not narrow-minded? Cheers, -ys
Received on Friday, 14 September 2007 01:48:58 UTC