- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 05:34:30 +0100
- To: www-tag@w3.org, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
On Thursday, January 16, 2003, 4:30:13 PM, Norm wrote: NW> In any event, I feel very strongly that the subsetting issue and the NW> other issues (like xml:id) *must* be dealt with separately. It would NW> be a procedural disaster, IMHO, to combine them. I agree that the are separate issues but clearly they are related and influence each other. A "subset XML" that removes all the existing mechanism to declare IDs has restricted the options down to a) Use XML Schema if you want IDs, otherwise there are none b) A new, in-band mechanism will provide IDs. NW> I am very, very nearly convinced that doing nothing is the wrong NW> answer Good. Stay with that thought ;-) NW> on the subject of xml:id, but I am absolutely certain that it NW> applies to XML in general and not only some possible subset. Yes it clearly applies to XML in general - its very important that the subset XML is a true subset and no a forked, subset-plus. But its also true that the need for a ID solution becomes more acute when a subsetted XML (that has no internal or external DTD subset) is considered. -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org Briefly chiming in on a break at a face-to-face meeting
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 23:34:54 UTC