W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2003

RE: Options for dealing with IDs

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 14:18:26 -0800
To: <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <027e01c2b69a$b360f590$9d0ba8c0@beasys.com>


Sure XPointer looks at the infoset.  But how does the infoset get the idattr
property?  If I build a streaming parser for XPointer that uses xml:idattr,
I've got to scan every element for an idattr attribute when looking for IDs.
For example:
     <greatgrandchild xml:idattr="name">
        <greatgreatgrandchild name="3">

I'm not saying this is an insurmountable problem.  It just is a deficiency.

Though this deficiency would be somewhat nullified if xml:base was also
adopted, as the parser has to scan for both base and idattr attributes.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Paul Grosso
> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 1:57 PM
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Options for dealing with IDs
> At 13:45 2003 01 07 -0800, David Orchard wrote:
> >Another potential aspect to look at is how XPointer would
> deal with these
> >various approaches.  Perhaps show how XPointer is affected by each,
> >particularly for bare names.  For example, Option #1, #8 has the
> >disadvantage that it means XPointer requires DTD or Schema
> validation.
> >Option #5, #6 has the disadvantage that the XPointer parser
> has to look at
> >the xml:idattr to figure out what the id attribute name is.
> I don't think XPointer looks at xml:idattr any more than
> it looks at, say, xml:base.  It looks at the infoset.
> All we'd have to say in a new little xml:id-ish spec
> is that xml:idattr adds a few pieces of information to
> the infoset (that, to date, only comes from the DTD),
> and there need be no change to XPointer.
> paul
Received on Tuesday, 7 January 2003 17:19:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:56 UTC