[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: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 08:49:23 -0600

The apriori link target problem is well-known. 
The trick is, a link is not *content*.  It is an 
in-band marker needed by the linking application. 

If we do it like HTML (the language that causes  
the problems XML is supposed to fix), then we create 
an element based target with a name= att.  If that is 
what XPointer needs, do that.  The problem is not 
the means of locating, it is the means of declaration. 
The advantage of xml: is that it is the system vocabulary 
and needs no declaration.   The same for PIs.  
Fine.  Just don't call it an ID.  That is a different 
beastie with additional requirements.  

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@S...]

Well, if you mean they understand elements, attributes, and text in a
default encoding, yes.  I think most people  originally grokked XML by
analogy with HTML -- "OK,it's like HTML, but a little bit more: all the tags
have to be balanced, you really do have to quote attribute values, and you
get to choose your own tagnames ..." If I'm right, they *expect* to be able
to do the other stuff you get for free in HTML, such as links.

• Prev by Date: lists.xml.org archives not accessible; any alternatives?
• Next by Date: Re: lists.xml.org archives not accessible; any alternatives?
• 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