[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 Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 04:53:33PM -0500, Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote: > > Because of the IETF framework. The fragment identfier is the way web > > aware application are supposed to found the expression of the sub resource > > pointed to. From my point of view the Web framework is not something I > > would go against. Also since 97 everybody expected to have foo#bar - when > > the resource foo is delivered as an XML resource - to point to the element > > carrying the ID "bar". Again breaking this expectation would be pretty > > major. > > OK. How about changing it to > > foo.xml#id='bar' > > or > > foo.xml#myid='bar' > > I know this is somewhat heretical, but in XLink, the only thing I've heard Hum, you should have a good idea of what it would take to try to push such an "heretical" design though a standard process. Not for me, thanks ! > > It's a special rule versus breaking the Web framework or/and an expected > > processing people have taken for granted for years now. > > IMHO, this is bogus rationale. The 'breaking web framework' is using fragment > identifiers.... which is still pretty much open territory, though XPointer > has the nod there. I think XPointer is overkill for this too... Well, If you think starting somthing against RFC 2396 is gonna fly, you have the right to try by yourself :-) Considering XPointer being overkill, well the current small framework for fragment identifier is supposed to be built by specifying one syntax (and the associated semantic) for each mime-type. I tend to agree that this framework: 1/ has not been extensively tested (HTML and ???) 2/ is far too limited considering XML syntax flexibility 3/ fell short in case of content-negociation but I wouldn't suggest to allow multiple bindings for a given Mime-Type. The Mime-Type is not representative of the reall resource content and expected processing anymore, and fixing this sounds horribly hard ... > As for the expected processing... I contend that overall the numbers of > people using ID's vs. those using anchors for linking is small. Well, if browsers had actually *implemented the f...g spec* then maybe that id=xxx would have been used !!! Not an error at the specification level but a serious lack of standard compliance as usual for HTML :-( . I don't buy your counter example :-), name=xxx works on an identical level, the users don't even know if it's an ID or not. They know that #foo will go there and that's all they look after. Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/ veillard@r... | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
|
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
|