- From: <David.Pawson@rnib.org.uk>
- Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 08:16:51 +0100
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com > 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? > > 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. I liked Pauls proposal. If xml:id (or some other identifying method) is documented in one rec, it may either be called up from, say, soap, or overridden if appropriate if the WG can defend a position of not using it. AFAIK no rec applies itself universally to all other recs? I guess the id rec would have similar standing? regards DaveP *** snip here *** - NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email's content. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete the email and any attachments from your system. RNIB has made strenuous efforts to ensure that emails and any attachments generated by its staff are free from viruses. However, it cannot accept any responsibility for any viruses which are transmitted. We therefore recommend you scan all attachments. Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RNIB. RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227 Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk
Received on Friday, 23 May 2003 03:17:47 UTC