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

Re: Change namespace of xml:id

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:27:23 -0500
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: public-xml-id@w3.org
Message-id: <87is536pic.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> was heard to say:
| * Norman Walsh wrote:
|>FWIW, I don't. There's a precedent for using xml: (xml:base, xml:lang,
|>xml:space). There's no precedent (that I can think of) for taking advantage
|>of the fact that XML reserves names beginning xml (except maybe
| xmlns.

Fair point.

|>Except user expectations. I think users would find the unqualified
|>attribute name "xmlid" more confusing than "xml:id".
| Well, lots of authors consider
|   x.setAttributeNS("http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace", "id", ...)
| more difficult than
|   x.setAttributeNS(null, "xmlid", ...)
| or
|   x.setAttribute("xmlid", ...)

Authors don't write any of those, programmers do.

| Evidence can easily be found on any forum that involves namespace
| discussions.

Yes, there's such wide controversy about namespaces that there's
probably evidence for any position in there somewhere.

I can see the arguments in favor of xmlid, but I still prefer xml:id.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2005 15:28:21 UTC

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