[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Re: determining ID-ness in XML
Is there any reason why XLink labels cannot be used for this? If you want to use a simple name in a fragment identifier, why not treat the referenced element as a resource and give it an xlink:label attribute, and modify XPointer to permit use of XLink label names as fragment identifiers as an alternative to IDs? > -----Original Message----- > From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@m...] > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 1:51 PM > To: xml-dev@l... > Subject: RE: Re: determining ID-ness in XML > > > At 4:24 PM -0600 11/5/01, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > >Isn't the point to use a means the XML processor > >isn't free to ignore per specification? That is > >why the concept of "reliability" was introduced > >although one could say "efficiency" and mention > >the cases of XPointers and serialization. > > > > No. That's not the point. It never has been. The XML processor is > most certainly free to ignore the semantics of xml:id, just like > today it ignores the semantics of xml:base. In fact, I would be very > surprised if an XML processor did recognize anything special about an > xml:id attribute. The client application that receives data from the > XML processor would impart certain semantics to xml:id, though even > there it would be free to ignore the standard semantics and apply > local processing rules instead, or simply ignore the attribute > completely, if that's what made sense to the people using the client > application. Of course this is exactly how every other specification > is implemented in practice today. Local client apps can always do > whatever they need to do. > > People keep getting confused with what we're really asking for > because ID has a certain meaning in the context of XML 1.0, but none > of that's necessary or even relevant here. We are *not* talking about > XML 1.0 or schema ID attributes. All we're asking for is name we can > link to. This could be done purely within the XPointer specification > without touching XML core. This reminds me a little of the type > debate a month ago, so let's steal a march from that flame war and > change the vocabulary so we stop getting confused. > > I officially withdraw my request for a standard xml:id attribute for > XML documents. > > I issue a new request for a standard xml:target attribute. This would > provide a unique name for XPointers to link to. It would have no > necessary type. It would have no affect on validity. The documents in > which it appears may or may not have DTDs, may or may not be valid, > and may or may not declare this attribute with any particular type. > Whether such a document was valid would be determined exactly > according to the rules of XML 1.0. If xml:target (and everything else > in the document) were properly declared the document would be valid. > If xml:target were not properly declared, the document would not be > valid. No parsers would change. The definition of validity would not > change. The only necessary change would be to XPointer and other > client specifications that needed to pay attention to this attribute. > Everybody else can ignore it. > > A few people seem to think that the xml: prefix is more special than > it is. The only thing that's special about it is that the namespace > doesn't have to be declared; but if that bothers you we can revise > this. Instead of using the xml: prefix we can use the xptri prefix > mapped to the http://www.w3.org/2001/xpointer-instance namespace URI. > As always the prefix can change as long as the URI remains the same. > > >One extends the system vocabulary precisely because > >it extends the requirement for the XML processor. > >If all you need is a convention, a PI or an > >alternative namespace are equally ignorable. > >Otherwise, we could just go on as is: "if you > >need an ID, spec a DTD and cite it in the > >contract for the communication when using > >well-formed files. This is only as reliable > >as your partners are diligent." > > > > I'm not quite sure where you draw the line on what is and is not the > system vocabulary. I could implement the xptri scheme in my own > software today without stepping on anyone's toes. That's what the X > in XML is all about. But it would probably be easier if we all agreed > on using the same thing for the same job. >
|
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
|