[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.
On Friday 09 November 2001 03:40 pm, Tim Bray wrote: > So given a couple weeks to think about this, I'm starting > to think that maybe there's no problem. Given an actual > real XML language [as opposed to an abstraction] you usually > know what the ID attributes are. It's well-defined for SVG, > XHTML, and pretty well anything else I can think of. Clearly > it's essential that an XLink/XPointer processor have an external > interface by which you can tell it "for this resource, XX is > an ID attribute". > > So where's the problem? When you're trying to process an > XLink/XPointer into something and the only thing you know > about it is that it's XML. Er..... what's the scenario > where this happens? -Tim This is the key point I think we keep coming back to here. People try to add/remove features from XML, when in fact, it's just as easy, even better, to do that as an application profile. Again, from a practical perspective, I don't need xml:base, the stylesheet PI, or any of these other things standardised. I got along perfectly welll without them before, and will keep on doing so.
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|