Re: xml:id checking

Richard Tobin scripsit:

>    "lax"

I support this one as least intrusive.

> Incidentally, I don't think we mention normalization at all in the
> existing draft.  The existing text nonetheless requires xml:id
> attributes to match NCName (why not NAME?) so xml:id=" foo " would be
> an xml:id error!  We sh ould add normalization explicitly as an issue.

Yes, we should require normalization.  As for NCName, it's reasonable
I think to make xml:id consistent with Namespaces, which restricts
ids to NCNames.

> In favour of the "lax" position is the equivalence with an internal
> subset that declares all the xml:id attributes as being of type ID.

Exactly.

> On favour of the other positions is the opportunity to go further in
> fixing the ID mess we currently have.

I want non-validating parsers to stay non-validating.

-- 
And through this revolting graveyard of the universe the muffled, maddening
beating of drums, and thin, monotonous whine of blasphemous flutes from
inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond Time; the detestable pounding
and piping whereunto dance slowly, awkwardly, and absurdly the gigantic
tenebrous ultimate gods -- the blind, voiceless, mindless gargoyles whose soul
is Nyarlathotep. (Lovecraft) John Cowan|jcowan@reutershealth.com|ccil.org/~cowan

Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2004 22:54:06 UTC