- From: Robert Streich <streich@slb.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 02:28:06 -0500
- 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 >example). 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. bob 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