|
[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.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:gtn@r...] > Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 1:19 AM > To: xml-dev@l... > Subject: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all. > > > People understood XML pretty well. 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. I've been waffling on DTD internal subsets vs PIs vs namespaces as a way to define ID-ness; I think Daniel Veillard's post finally catalyzed my opinion: " If you put xml:id="foo" on an element then blah.xml#foo will point to it". People who think of XML as HTML++ won't already understand DTDs, or PIs, or a namespace that they have to declare for themselves, but if they had xml:id, they could link to it almost exactly as they do in HTML today. > For a lot of the common folk it's hard > to understand what they need and what they don't:, becasue they have to > learn everything in order to decide... Good point ... in XML writ large, you have to know something before you know whether you need to know it :~) The virtue of the xml:id solution is that the people who think XML is HTML++ probably think it's there in XML already!
|
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
|
|||||||||

Cart








