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

Re: FW: W3C XML ID ambiguity

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:56:10 +0200
Message-ID: <12510583114.20050422235610@w3.org>
To: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
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>

On Friday, April 22, 2005, 11:37:55 PM, Elliotte wrote:

EH> Chris Lilley wrote:

>> All of which applies exactly equally to xml:base and xml:space, right?

EH> And if all the other attributes jumped off a cliff, would you follow
EH> them?

Stepping back a little into technical ground once more:

Earlier you stated

>> xml:id is in fact not parallel to xml:space and xml:lang. It has
>> different inheritance behavior, and therefore should not be treated
>> the same. There is significance to the shift from xml:id to xmlid,
>> and no one has to look too deeply to find it. xmlid was chosen over
>> xml:id (or should be chosen) simply because it is qualitatively
>> different from xml:space and xml:lang. It applies to a single element
>> rather than that element's entire subtree.

It seemed therefore that you were arguing that xml:* should mean
inherited. Now you seem to be saying that all future xml* should ot be
xml:* whether inherited or not.

I'm just trying to understand exactly what you are proposing, because
otherwise I can't evaluate it.

EH> xml:space is broken, and xml:base is even more broken. We know this
EH> from experience. Why should we keep making the same damn mistakes?

Well, I hear people say that about xml too, but it still seems to have
good value to me.

EH> Was it Marx who said, "History repeats itself, first as tragedy,
EH> then as farce"? xml:base was a tragedy. xml:id is a farce.

I think you overstate the case. xml:base added some badly needed
capabilities to the language. Which arguably should have been there from
the beginning (much more useful than things that did make it in, such as
DTD syntax, external parsed entities, notations, etc). xml:id similarly
should have been there from the beginning, as soon as fetching the
external DTD subset was made optional rather than mandatory.

Without a time machine, the easiest way to fix that now is to add them,
now.

Moving away from namespaces - but only for the xml namespace - just
sounds like a short term kink to me, one that will be viewed in
retrospect as "ah yes, namespaces were unfashionable 2004-2006 so we
have this wart where its not actually in a namespace ..."

-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Friday, 22 April 2005 21:56:25 UTC

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