- From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@redhat.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:41:06 -0500
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, public-xml-id@w3.org
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 04:20:34PM +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > > * 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 > >xml-stylesheet). > > xmlns. Well it's the building block for namespaces, sounds a bootstrap issue to me. > >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", ...) > > Evidence can easily be found on any forum that involves namespace > discussions. I don't think using a non-namespaced attribute for what we want to do would be accepted within W3C. And using a namespace different than the XML one would also raise serious problems IMHO. We got lot of flack when doing XML Base, but nobody complained that adding the xml: prefix was too hard for authors, either in the design phase nor since it's a REC. I would expect xml:id (like xml:base) to be in tool generated anyway in most cases like with XSLT generate-id(), generating unicity is best done by machines. Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Desktop team http://redhat.com/ veillard@redhat.com | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2005 15:41:12 UTC