- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:31:36 -0500
- To: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Cc: public-xml-id@w3.org
On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 15:22 -0400, Norman Walsh wrote: > / Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> was heard to say: > | Hmm... it seems pretty important to keep "C Impacts on Other Standards" > | around until xml:id has been implemented in those other places. > | > | It's not clear to me whether you plan to keep it or not. > | > | If it stays in, I'm satisfied. > | > | If not, I need to think it over. > > The plan is to remove it, so please consider if that's acceptable based > on the current evidence of interoperability. OK, I took a look at the implementation report, and I see "The libxml2 library has had support for xml:id since version 2.6.9 released Apr 18 2004. The support is switched on by default, and xml:id attributes when not in error are handled like DTD ID attributes. As a result they are available as ID for libxml2 XPath, XPointer implementation, as well as for XSLT, XML DSig and other tools or languages based on the libxml2 library since then." -- http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/01/xml-id-implementation.html I guess that's good enough for me. Chris, I think you expressed some sympathy for my comment. Be advised I'm now satisfied. If you're not satisfied by the WG's response, i.e. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-id/2005Jun/0011.html then you'll need to send your own comment. Dom, if you have any related concerns, that goes for you too. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 10 June 2005 19:31:49 UTC