- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 15:14:15 +0200
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, www-style@w3.org, <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
On Tuesday, May 10, 2005, 10:04:22 AM, Henri wrote: HS> Robin Berjon wrote: >> Now we have xml:id which is a very neat addition to the XML toolset. It >> makes an important chunk of what end-users find scary with XML go away. >> An XML specification that simplifies XML, and you don't find that >> special? ;-) HS> Of course, the truly simple and pragmatic way would have been speccing HS> that the attribute 'id' (not in a namespace) counts as an ID. If you take a look at the TAG finding on ID for XML, that option (and variations therof) was of course considered. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlIDsemantics-32.html Its option 5.1 Steal the string "id" HS> (It's not like anyone uses an attribute named like that for any other HS> purpose anyway. At least not to any significant extent.) Hmm. And you happen to know that they would not mind. If an attribute is called 'id' it is of type ID. If you want an interoperable IDness then you must call your attribute id. If you previously had attributes called id and you don't want them to be of type ID, change their names. This is a somewhat brutal solution, especially for any content that already has attributes called 'id' that are not of type ID. On the other hand, a very large percentage of existing XML usage does indeed call its ID attributes 'id'. This solution is an XML language change. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2005 13:14:30 UTC