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

RE: My opinion on the problem of identifying ID semantics

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 08:41:10 -0500
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030523083212.03507f00@172.27.10.30>
To: www-tag@w3.org

At 08:16 2003 05 23 +0100, David.Pawson@rnib.org.uk wrote:

>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?


The XML spec reserves all names starting with "xml", and I believe
that applies to all other Recs.

It could be questioned, then, who/what can define the semantics for
a name that starts with "xml".  The usual belief is that the XML Core
WG in the XML Activity of the W3C is probably the most logical
candidate, though it is true (due to resource allocation at the time)
that the XML Activity allowed the XLink WG to be the original developer
of xml:base (though maintenance of that spec was moved to the XML Core 
WG a while ago).

I don't think it would be considered appropriate for another spec to
re-define the semantics of xml:base.

I think at least some people would expect that, if the XML Core WG
developed an xml:id spec that was approved by the W3C membership,
it would be considered problematic for another spec to define a
different semantic for xml:id.

Presumably, any issues that SOAP or other specs would have would be
addressed before any xml:id spec became a Rec so that there would be
only one semantic for xml:id.

paul
Received on Friday, 23 May 2003 09:41:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:38 UTC