- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 16:38:02 +0200
- To: EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp (Murata Makoto)
- CC: www-tag@w3.org
On Tuesday, May 13, 2003, 6:18:19 AM, Murata wrote: MM> I think that a lont-term solution is to develop an MM> independent language for specifying integrity constraints. MM> That language should be developed on the basis of MM> recent research such as Wenfei Fan's works [1] and [2]. Thanks for the references - interesting. MM> Such a long-term solution takes a lot of time, however. MM> We need a short-term solution. It should not cause any MM> problems to long-term solutions. MM> I believe that xml:id is the best short-term solution. MM> It is ad-hoc but does the job at minimum cost. Yes, it does seem a reasonable tradeoff to me. I have heard some people argue in favor of it and, significantly, more people arguing for other solutions but saying they 'could live with' xml:id. MM> I think that the inline declaration solutions sketched in the MM> Draft TAG finding document is not powerful as a long-term solution MM> and takes too much cost as a short-term solution. Can you provide more detail on both the lack of power and the increased cost? Is the cost due to the scoped nature? Because XML already has xml:lang and xml:base which are also scoped. MM> [1] http://www.bell-labs.com/user/wenfei/publication.html MM> [2] http://www.research.avayalabs.com/user/wadler/planx/planx-eproceed/papers/E00-1591816349.ps -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2003 10:38:08 UTC