RE: [office-collab] Possible UC7 for consideration...

[John Haug <johnhaug@exchange.microsoft.com>]

Isn't that just a case of the application realizing it's changing one name of a pair and not leaving the other an orphan?

-----Original Message-----
From: monkeyiq [mailto:monkeyiq@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 1:58 PM
To: John Haug
Cc: office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [office-collab] Possible UC7 for consideration...

On Mon, 2011-08-15 at 18:12 +0000, John Haug wrote:
> Ben: Even when the result is two begin annotation XML elements with 
> the same name?
> 
> My thinking here was that it is up to the application to ensure it 
> doesn’t duplicate names if that’s not allowed.  Same as the myriad 
> other places that rule applies.  Dennis points out it’s not an ID and 
> doesn’t have the same kind of document validation baggage an ID would, 
> though 19.376.6 does require the name must be unique for each pair of 
> annotation / annotation-end.  The ID question you raise sounds like 
> the question your UC8 raises.  That also seems to me to be a largely 
> straightforward case of the app needing to be aware of names/IDs in 
> use and not introduce duplicates.

One subtle difference between rewriting an xml:id and changing the begin/end name occurs to me. For the xml:id case, when making a bucket you can add new RDF to make sure the things linked to the old (existing) xml:id are linked to the new xml:id used in the bucket.

If you update the name used for the begin XML element for a bookmark or annotation then there is no longer a matching end XML element for it. So you either get two begin markers with the same name or a begin marker without an end marker.