[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.
At 08:45 AM 13/11/01 +0700, James Clark wrote: >(a) Remove the RawName construct in XPointer >(b) Change the semantics of the RawName construct in XPointer to say that it refers to, say, a element with a xptr:name attribute with a particular value >(c) Add an xml:idatt(s) to XML The longer I think about xml:idatts the less I like it, simply because it feels wrong to add yet another declaration method/ syntax on top of what we already have in this sort of ad-hoc way, when the problem, operationally, doesn't seem that severe. Once again, mea culpa for pushing this grungy snowball over the edge of the hill. I don't understand XPointer well enough to have an intelligent opinion about (a) or (b). Except for I'm generally in favor of removing things :) -Tim
|
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
|