• To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>
• Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 11:42:08 -0500
• References: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E401C9B2EC@u...>

 Mike,

>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@m...]
> > Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 11:00 AM
> > To: Champion, Mike; xml-dev@l...
> > Subject: Re:  So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
> >
>
> > so what am I missing?
>
> Maybe nothing, except my wistful hope that we really can do this kind of
> thing with WF XML syntax  rather than DTD syntax someday...

I know what you are getting at, but want to remind people that "well-formed
XML" _includes_ the internal DTD subset and hence all of this can be done
in-band. That said I do understand that many of us want to do this will
pointy brackets and so am sympathetic to the xml:id proposal.

What I am most definitely _not_ sympathetic to is defining a new non-pointy
bracket syntax (e.g. PI based) to accomplish something which is already
obtainable in XML 1.0 itself.

Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>

• References:
  • RE: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>

• Prev by Date: RE: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Next by Date: Re: To do list relative to W3C XML Schema
• 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