- From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:22:23 -0400
- To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org, David Pawson <dpawson@nildram.co.uk>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Norman Walsh scripsit:
> I've updated the xml:id specification per our discussions at the XML
> Core WG telcon today:
>
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/xmlcore/xmlid/xml-id.html
Thanks for the quick turnaround, Norm. A few editorial notes:
1) The must-within-must and must-within-should wording in section 4
is confusing. I suggest the following:
An xml:id processor must assure that the following statements hold for
all xml:id attributes:
* The normalized value of each xml:id attribute is a valid NCName.
* If the type of an xml:id attribute is specified using a validation
technology, the type is 'ID'.
An xml:id processor should assure that the following statement holds
for xml:id attributes:
* All values of type )B�ID� within a document are unique.
2) The "Strictly speaking" in the definition of validation is a hangover from
earlier drafts, and the definition of validation isn't actually marked up as
a definition.
--
He played King Lear as though John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
someone had played the ace. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
--Eugene Field http://www.reutershealth.com
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:23:05 UTC