W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-id@w3.org > April 2005

Re: FW: W3C XML ID ambiguity

From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 17:37:55 -0400
Message-ID: <42696EB3.1050702@metalab.unc.edu>
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!
Received on Friday, 22 April 2005 21:38:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:53:49 UTC