Re: [Minutes] 6 Jan 2003 TAG teleconf (httpRange-14, XInclude conneg, XML next version, namespaceDocument-8)

I have no specific comments on xml:id except to say that
it should not be combined with an XML profile/subset.  

If xml:id is to be considered, it should be a separate
spec like XML Base.  (And, yes, someday, maybe all these
specs can be combined in some XML 2.0 or whatever.)  But
as far as the near term specification of an XML 1.0 subset 
that addresses issues such as SOAP's, that should be a strict
subset of XML 1.0 and should therefore not include anything
about xml:id.


At 18:25 2003 01 07 +0100, Chris Lilley wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, 4:33:22 AM, Ian wrote:
>IBJ> [Ian]
>IBJ>         TB: It's too late for xml:id. Every language
>IBJ>         out there uses "id" to be of type ID.: You
>IBJ>         could adopt James Clark's solution, or you
>IBJ>         could bite the bullet and say that #id means
>IBJ>         the element with the attribute "id"."
>IBJ>         CL: Another way (also proposed by James) is to
>IBJ>         say that xml:id is decoration.
>Just to be clear, that was 'declaration' not 'decoration'. As TimBL
>understood when he continued:
>IBJ>         TBL: Is this an implicit declaration in all
>IBJ>         documents?
>To answer the question - xml:id is an implicit declattation (because
>its in the xml namespace); xml:idAttr is a declaration mechanism.

>Muddling along seems a really poor argument. We have muddled along
>without a written web architecture, as well. people muddled along with
>SGML before there was XML (ducks) and so forth...

>IBJ> [Ian]
>IBJ>         TB: The risk of slippery slope for just one new
>IBJ>         feature is horrendous.
>IBJ> [Chris]
>IBJ>         It causes *immense* practical problems
>IBJ>         GetElementByID is the single most used DOM call
>And pointing by id is the most common reference method and the most
>stable in the face of document editing.
>And styling by id is a greatly preferable methof for one-off overrides
>than, for example, the semantically equivalent (in CSS2) but
>syntactically inferior style attribute.
>So, as long as we are prepared to throw away styling, scripting and
>linking well hey, we can generate inanimate pictures of XML documents
>just fine ....

>Because of the conflation of validation and decoration (and I do mean
>decoration, in this instance) RDF/XML is unable to say that its
>attribute called ID is of type ID because the existing mechanisms do
>not adequately distinguish decoration (of types, such as ID or anyURI,
>and of attribute default values) from validation of the entire
>document including its exhaustive content model etc.
>xml:idAttr would howerver, very simply and with minimal impact, alow
>any RDF/XML instance to simply add
>as an attribute to its root element and there you are, none, no DTD
>needed or wanted, done and dusted.

Received on Tuesday, 7 January 2003 12:50:32 UTC