- From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 09:39:18 -0700
- To: "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>
- Cc: "Kelly Miller" <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>, www-forms@w3.org, www-forms-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF36D266B0.3A4EF9F3-ON88257177.005A3C36-88257177.005B7E43@ca.ibm.com>
Hi Leigh, Since it is not the case that xml:id deprecated the use of ID type attributes, the question arises: If an XML vocabulary describes an ID attribute and XML itself describes an ID attribute, which one do you put? This is the same question as the one you asked below about xhtml:id versus xforms:id. And the answer is that it doesn't really matter. XML does not say that you can't have two *possible* attributes of type ID. It only says that you can't have two *actual* attributes of type ID. This is part of why I believe that the argument against declaring an id in common attributes holds no water. Moreover, the question of xhtml:id versus xforms:id is a bit of a tangent because what I'd like to do is have the id attribute be in the Per-Element-Type partition, not the Global Attribute partition. This means one would write id as an unqualified attribute, not as one qualified by a namespace prefix. This is the other part of why I believe there is no good argument against declaring an id in XForms common attributes. Authors want to be able to write id="X" rather than xhtml:id="X". In particular, it is the desire to reduce namespace qualification that is causing us to want to import the XForms vocabulary into the XHTML2 namespace. Forcing XForms authors to namespace qualify their ID attributes works against this goal. Best regards, 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 "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com> Sent by: www-forms-request@w3.org 05/19/2006 03:55 PM To John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA, "Kelly Miller" <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com> cc <www-forms@w3.org>, <www-forms-request@w3.org> Subject RE: Why no id attribute in common attributes? xml:id *came* from XForms. You might recall it was proposed by Steven Pemberton at the San Diego F2F Halloween 2000. Steven Pemberton: Let's create a draft for xml:id. Leigh Klotz: We're all having trouble with it; let's all be authors. Steven Pemberton: OK. We cannot put DTDs in external instances in XForms, so there is no way to declare ID attributes on them. Resolution 2002-11-21.2: We create a draft for xml:id to help ease problems with XForms integration. The rationale for leaving it out is not flimsy; it has everything to do with namespaces. If XHTML describes an id called xhtml:id and xforms describes and id called xforms:id, and XML says you can't have two ID attributes on the same element, which one do you put? Leigh. From: www-forms-request@w3.org [mailto:www-forms-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Boyer Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 10:05 AM To: Kelly Miller Cc: www-forms@w3.org; www-forms-request@w3.org Subject: Re: Why no id attribute in common attributes? 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 Tuesday, 23 May 2006 16:39:29 UTC