- From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 10:05:03 -0700
- To: Kelly Miller <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-forms@w3.org, www-forms-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFBDD44DCA.7F0D27FB-ON88257173.005D224B-88257173.005DD8B6@ca.ibm.com>
Hi Kelly, Not really. In fact, I've raised the issue again exactly because of the xml:id recommendation. Fact is, I don't necessarily want to type xml:id all over the place, so having an id available is highly desirable. As I recall, the rationale for leaving it out was kind of flimsy. I believe the thinking was that the host document format might want to be in control of the naming convention for IDs throughout the document. I think xml:id breaks that. The other possibility was that the above might be needed to ensure that our declaration of an id attribute didn't conflict with declarations needed by the host language if they were trying to control ID-ness uniformly in some way. However, this seems to confuse the notion of having more than one possible ID attribute with actually declaring more than one ID attribute, only the latter of which is non-valid. And again, xml:id itself provides the possibility but not the reality of a second ID attribute. Finally, notwithstanding the problems, it still doesn't seem very compelling compared to not having an id attribute automatically available in the content model, esp. since we declare so many IDREFs in the schema. Cheers, John M. Boyer, Ph.D. Senior Product Architect/Research Scientist Co-Chair, W3C XForms Working Group Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software IBM Victoria Software Lab E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com http://www.ibm.com/software/ Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer Kelly Miller <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com> Sent by: www-forms-request@w3.org 05/19/2006 04:52 AM To John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA cc www-forms@w3.org Subject Re: Why no id attribute in common attributes? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Does leaving this out have something to do with the xml:id Recommendation? John Boyer wrote: | The XForms schema makes lots of attributes of type xsd:IDREF, but | Common Attributes appears to be missing the following: | | <xsd:attribute name="id" type="xsd:ID" use="optional"/> | | Rather than forcing every host language to add this attribute to the | schema, an XForms 1.0 erratum should add this to the XForms schema. | | The argument that the host language may want to have its own uniform | way of assigning identities does not seem to hold water, esp. given | xml:id. | | John M. Boyer, Ph.D. | Senior Product Architect/Research Scientist | Co-Chair, W3C XForms Working Group | Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software | IBM Victoria Software Lab | E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com http://www.ibm.com/software/ | | Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer | | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEbbGDvCLXx0V8XHQRAmb+AKCeubPK+1qNn3mB8bJOAnW8mJWTlACgqsox 4Ac1eawEzT7E+de5vANhX5w= =RN2D -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 19 May 2006 17:05:19 UTC