- From: Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:13:48 -0600
- To: public-microxml@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAPJCua27_uWzH-KUqGDz0-+Ur6pGhMkzfdbKZcn40zPFv6OgGw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:08 AM, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> wrote: > On 16/08/2012 17:54, Uche Ogbuji wrote: > > None of these refer to semantics. >> >> >> Yes! This is a key, key point that some have missed in discussion. >> >> > Not missed. Just disagree that that is a good thing. > Maybe not missed by you, but this has been muddles at some points in the discussion. No matter, good to have it clearly stated. > I would probably be against xml:id in anycase but the argument against it > would be weakened if the datamodel were extended to support ID typing. > Allowing syntax that was added to xml _specifically_ to support ID typing, > but not to provide the same typing mechanism is just leading to confusion. No. xml:id was not added to XML, at least not in any way that this discussion precludes its addition to μXML. -- Uche Ogbuji http://uche.ogbuji.net Founding Partner, Zepheira http://zepheira.com http://wearekin.org http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/uogbuji/ http://copia.ogbuji.net http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji http://twitter.com/uogbuji
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 17:14:26 UTC