[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] id or xml:id attribute?
Hi, my assumption is that the xml:id attribute the the advantage that it is understood as an attribute of type ID even by applications that are not schema aware. If that assumption is correct, then I think we should in fact consider to add xml:id attributes. Michael Patrick Durusau wrote: > Bruce, > > A further wrinkle: Note that text:id is defined as string not ID. I have > not checked on the others. > > I will have to re-read the spec but to change the interpretation of > text:id to be ID may pose backward compatibility problems. > > Hope you are looking forward to a great weekend! > > Patrick > > Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > >> >> On Nov 10, 2006, at 10:05 AM, Dave Pawson wrote: >> >>> I think 1.2 would be a good chance to decide if we mean xml:id >>> or just another attribute. >>> >>> I don't think this would meet your example Bruce? >> >> >> What's the referent of "this" Dave? >> >> My understanding of xml:id is that it does indeed fullfill the need >> to identify and reference document fragments, in a general and >> consistent way. >> >> But in any case, we need it to be able to support one of our use >> cases, which I think implies at minimum that ids must be unique >> across all the namespaces. >> >> Might be good to consider adding xml:id in the future though. >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> >> >> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]