- From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 17:37:55 -0400
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- CC: "Bassetti, Ann" <ann.bassetti@boeing.com>, public-xml-id@w3.org, "Bugbee, Larry" <larry.bugbee@boeing.com>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, "Reid, Travis S" <travis.s.reid@boeing.com>, "Gerstmann, Jerry P" <jerry.p.gerstmann@boeing.com>, "Meadows, Joe" <joe.meadows@nobs.ca.boeing.com>
Chris Lilley wrote: > All of which applies exactly equally to xml:base and xml:space, right? And if all the other attributes jumped off a cliff, would you follow them? xml:space is broken, and xml:base is even more broken. We know this from experience. Why should we keep making the same damn mistakes? The only objection I've heard to xmlid is that it doesn't have a colon. How does that hurt anybody? In fact, the Boeing folks make a cogent argument that the lack of a colon and its attendant namespace is a net positive for xmlid. I know there have been a lot of bad decisions made and designs promulgated in the XML space. I see no reason to follow those known bad examples when designing completely new specs. Was it Marx who said, "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce"? xml:base was a tragedy. xml:id is a farce. -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@metalab.unc.edu XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published! http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim
Received on Friday, 22 April 2005 21:38:00 UTC