W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > October 1996

Re: C.12 types of declared values for attributes?

From: Robert Streich <streich@slb.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 02:28:06 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0b26.32.19961023015429.006a9238@austin.sar.slb.com>
To: "David G. Durand" <dgd@cs.bu.edu> (David G. Durand)
Cc: W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>, W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
At 11:23 AM 10/18/96 -0400, David G. Durand"  (David G. Durand wrote:
>I never understood why I needed more than one unique identifier for an
>element: that's why the SGMl syntax never bothered me. If Eve and Lee both
>think it's useful, I'll defer to their judgement (though I'd love an

I agree wholeheartedly with Eve and Lee--multiple IDs are useful.

I can't remember what I needed them for the last time, I guess it's past
my bedtime. I rememember that I was trying to duplicate the linkages that
a DMS used between its records because it was very easy to generate the
SGML from the report generator. In the end, I didn't use any IDs anyway
since I couldn't assure that they would be valid NAMEs anyway. Didn't
matter, the browser allowed me to make the links anyway.

But, I bet you like symbolic links, don't you? Same principles. With current
SGML implementations, an ID is best if the name is meaningful, but names
are only appropriate to a given context. If you can have two meaningful
names, you can address the needs of two discrete contexts.


Robert Streich				streich@slb.com
Schlumberger				voice: 1 512 331 3318
Austin Research				fax:   1 512 331 3760
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 1996 03:37:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:04 UTC