Comments on http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-id-20040407/

Hi,

I have few comments on this WD which I think is meeting a real need.

      * I think that you should add a definition in your Terminology
        section stating that unless otherwise qualified, the word
        "processor" means a XML processor compliant to the xml:id
        specification (otherwise, people can read that spec as a
        modification of the XML rec.).
      * You make a reference to XML 1.0 but do not mention XML 1.1. It
        might be a good idea to mention if it applies to XML 1.1 as well
        (I don't why it couldn't)
      * (#id-strictness) I really don't like the idea of non validating
        parsers having to report errors when a XML document is well
        formed but the xml:id is mis-used. I'd prefer that you say that
        non validating parsers may report errors and add a comment
        suggesting that they add properties to switch this error
        reporting on and off.
      * The fact that xml:id relies on the XML infoset restricts its
        scope to XML documents that are conform to namespaces in XML. Is
        that really needed? xml:space and xml:lang on one hand and DTD
        IDs on the other hand work for any XML document, why couldn't it
        be the case for xml:id?

Thanks for that spec,

Eric



-- 
Did you know it? Python has now a Relax NG (partial) implementation.
                                          http://advogato.org/proj/xvif/
Upcoming XML schema languages tutorial:
 - Amsterdam   -half day- (18/04/2004)        http://masl.to/?P220516D7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
(ISO) RELAX NG   ISBN:0-596-00421-4 http://oreilly.com/catalog/relax
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Friday, 9 April 2004 02:26:39 UTC