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

RE: My opinion on the problem of identifying ID semantics

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 14:28:13 -0400
To: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF5E082D51.C0E926EE-ON85256D2F.0065B78A@lotus.com>

I hope nobody was proposing to "override" the semantics of an xml:id spec, 
presuming one were published as a rec.  What is a concern is when and if 
it would be appropriate for a group such as xmlp to say:  "no, that 
doesn't quite meet our needs, we're going to publish our own spec for 
soapenc:id even though xml:id already exists".  Soapenc:id was mentioned 
as one of the inspirations for standardizing an xml:id, but I'm not 
convinced that the two would likely have quite the same use or semantics. 
So, I think it's interesting before standardizing xml:id to figure out 
which use cases it would in principle cover.  My item #2 was to suggest 
that such thinking be signaled explicitly as background for review of any 
proposals.  Thanks.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------







Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
05/23/2003 09:41 AM

 
        To:     www-tag@w3.org
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        RE: My opinion on the problem of identifying ID semantics



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 14:38:32 UTC

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