- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 12:36:06 -0400
- To: "MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)" <EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp>
- Cc: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
I think there are two steps to be considered in any possible TAG endorsement of xml:id. 1. Should W3C take steps to create a normative specification for xml:id? 2. If so, what guidelines should be given for use of xml:id in future W3C recommendations, as well as in other (I.e. non-W3C) vocabularies? The purpose of this note is not to offer an opinion on #1, but rather to suggest that #2 needs some attention. I've been thinking about SOAP's use of its own id-like attributes. I note that most proposals for xml:id effectively have document-scope, which is right for many use cases. The SOAP attributes are not intended to have such scope. They are for use in constructing graphs that can encompass some of the content in a document, but not the rest. There might be other reasons which someone might want to put identifiers on elements, and those might indeed have document scope. Thus, it is incoherent to put a soap-enc:id on the soap:envelope element. Question 2 asks: were we to be starting on the specification for SOAP encoding today, would advocates of xml:id recommend that we use it in place of soap-enc:id? I think that answering #2 is useful in its own right, and is also revealing of the underlying merits of doing xml:id at all. Again, it is not the purpose of this note to offer an opinion on that one way or the other. Thank you. Noah [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-soap12-part2-20030507/#uniqueids ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2003 13:50:48 UTC