office message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] id or xml:id attribute?
- From: Zhi Yu Yue <yuezhiyu@cn.ibm.com>
- To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:39:18 +0800
Hi all
It should be more consistent to use
xml:id attribute. The W3C xml:id specification here (http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-id/)
provides the reference [D3] on how to add the xml:id attribute to the RELAX_NG
schema.
One question is that, it is required
that the values of ALL xml:id attribute must be unique within one document.
That means, one ID per element. For example, the paragraph ids (text:id)
and drawing ids (draw:id) should not overlap. Is it same in our current
schema definition?
Best Regards,
Helen Yue
Michael Brauer <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM>
Sent by: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM
11/13/2006 03:25 PM
|
To
| patrick@durusau.net
|
cc
| "Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus@gmail.com>,
office@lists.oasis-open.org
|
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]