- From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:54:04 -0400
- To: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
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