- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 07:42:45 +0100
- To: MicroXML <public-microxml@w3.org>
Well put Andrew. Wholly agree. regards DaveP On 14 August 2012 16:55, Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com> wrote: >>> If a consumer needs the features those attributes provide, they should >>> just use xml. >> >> >> I guess this is where I put on my selfish hat. I do want to use xml:lang, >> and to a lesser extent xml:space, but I do not want to pay the full cost of >> XML to do so. > > Well for me xml:lang is application level thing (as discussed), and > xml:space is only ever really needed to selectively not strip > whitespace when whitespace stripping is performed by the parser, and I > would expect this to be disallowed in the spec anyway. > >> If you remove xml:base and xml:id, I think coverage of the other two in >> John's draft is less than half a page. It's hard to see that as an >> excessive complication. > > Again I don't see the need for xml:base and xml:id, both are > application level for me. > > In fact it annoys me when xml:id is used because it imposes the spec's > concept of an id... for example I might want to use '12345' for an id, > or a phone number etc. > > > -- > Andrew Welch > http://andrewjwelch.com > -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2012 06:43:17 UTC