[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: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 11:14:39 -0500
• In-reply-to: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E401C9B302@u...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E401C9B302@u...>

On Sunday 11 November 2001 08:51 am, Champion, Mike wrote:
> 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.

The problem is that not that many people acutally do that for HTML. I'd love 
to see the results of a spider crawl looking for this construct. I'll bet 
that  less than 10% of all pages use it.

Again, why special case it?

• References:
  • RE: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>

• Prev by Date: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• 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