- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 22:33:46 +0200
- To: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Cc: "Bassetti, Ann" <ann.bassetti@boeing.com>, public-xml-id@w3.org, "Bugbee, Larry" <larry.bugbee@boeing.com>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, "Reid, Travis S" <travis.s.reid@boeing.com>, "Gerstmann, Jerry P" <jerry.p.gerstmann@boeing.com>, "Meadows, Joe" <joe.meadows@nobs.ca.boeing.com>
On Friday, April 22, 2005, 10:22:12 PM, Elliotte wrote: EH> xml:id is in fact not parallel to xml:space and xml:lang. It has EH> different inheritance behavior, and therefore should not be treated the EH> same. There is significance to the shift from xml:id to xmlid, and no EH> one has to look too deeply to find it. xmlid was chosen over xml:id (or EH> should be chosen) simply because it is qualitatively different from EH> xml:space and xml:lang. It applies to a single element rather than that EH> element's entire subtree. I would describe an unwarranted assumption that all xml:* attributes are inherited to be more of an ungodly mess, myself. EH> What the Boeing folks have pointed out (that xmlid is much easier to EH> handle in namespace-aware processors than xml:id because it doesn't EH> require any special casing) is yet another reason to prefer xmlid to xml:id. Neither should xml:id. Its clearly in the xml namespace and is clearly thus reserved. EH> The only reason to use xml:id is an adamant belief that all names should EH> have colons in them. Namespaces have long since been recognized as an EH> ungodly mess and an ugly kludge. It's well past time we stopped EH> enforcing that kludge on every new spec despite very good reasons to go EH> down a different path. Sure, if you don't mind a few years of churn and if you have something better. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Friday, 22 April 2005 20:33:52 UTC