- From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@allette.com.au>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 05:14:32 +1000
- To: <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>
> From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> > At 04:56 AM 28/06/97 +1000, Rick Jelliffe wrote: > >If you need unique references + wild data, you could use ENTITY > >rather than ID. > > Yes, but to quote Richard Nixon: That would be wrong. Morals aside, > as you point out, they're not inline, which means they're not > suitable for XML. -T. What about a scientific approach? Everyone send in strings they have *actually* wanted to use as unique IDs. Not things people think they might have wanted to have used, but ones they actually did have wanted to have used. If you ever changed your SGML declaration to add a symbol to namechar, that would be acceptable too. If we get a list, we can see if there is any commonality. My list (of non-RCS symbol characters I've wished I could have used or I have added to a NMCHAR) is simply "_" . I've wanted "+" but only so that I could use "+" in a name formed from "external_entity+idref". Xml-link supercedes this, so I don't need it. Rick Jelliffe
Received on Friday, 27 June 1997 15:14:05 UTC