[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: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>
• Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 22:15:38 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:gtn@r...]
> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 8:43 PM
> To: Tim Bray; xml-dev@l...
> Subject: Re:  So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
> 
> 
> 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.

You're not exactly John Q. Webhacker, Gavin! (likewise, Jonathan Borden).
How about the folks who don't develop their own tools and haven't 10 years
of experience with SGML?  Would ordinary mortals find some sort of
standardized PI or namespace to define ID-ness helpful?  

Would those of us who develop tools and explain how to use them find it
easier to help J. Q. Webhacker and friends declare IDs with DTDs/Schemas, or
with the ID-ness PI/namespace?  
 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: ID-ness in XML
• Next by Date: RE: ID-ness in XML
• 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