Re: Typo in xml-id spec; canonicalization?

/ Webb Roberts <webb.roberts@gtri.gatech.edu> was heard to say:
| "XML Schema authors are encouraged to use xml:id attributes
| exclusively in to indicate element identifiers."
|
| I'm unsure of the status of xml:id with respect to the
| canonicalization spec. I'm expecting resistance in introducing
| xml:id into upcoming vocabularies due to the conflict. Our domain is
| definitely concerned with XML signatures, so it's not something that
| can be ignored. Any advice?

We were careful to word this as "encouragement" rather than something
stronger precisely because we were aware that there may be user
communities and applications where there are compelling reasons to use
some other name for attributes of type ID.

To the extent that your specifications make use of exclusive (rather
than inclusive) C14N, I believe that the C14N issues do not apply.

Hopefully it will be possible to revise the C14N spec so that this
problem goes away (though, of course, nothing can be done to fix
existing deployed software).

I believe our advice remains that you should name your attributes
"xml:id", this will provide the most interoperable "IDness" for your
elements.

Please let us know if this resolution is unsatisfactory.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.