[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.

• To: jim@a...,Jim Ancona <scarhill@y...>,Bob Hutchison <hutch@x...>
• Subject: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 13:12:01 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <20011113154827.64876.qmail@w...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <20011113154827.64876.qmail@w...>

On Tuesday 13 November 2001 10:48 am, Jim Ancona wrote:
> A URI+fragment identifier IS a globally unique identifier (assuming that
> the fragment identifier points to an element named by an ID, as XPointer
> says). So cross-document graphs may be represented with a URI Reference
> interpreted as an XPointer Bare Name.

Well, we've heard that, depending on the system, the resource identified by 
the URI might not be unique... so I guess we have varying degrees of 
uniqueness.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Jim Ancona <scarhill@y...>

• References:
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Jim Ancona <scarhill@y...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Doing less is all a matter of perspective was Re: IDs considered harmful
• Next by Date: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Previous by thread: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Next by thread: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread