Re: [xtm-wg] Syntax is a bitch :-(

[Dave Pawson <daveP@dpawson.freeserve.co.uk>]

At 07:35 PM 10/9/00, you wrote:
>Dave Pawson wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > >Also, ID shouldn't be required because the are unnecessary. All topic
> > >instances are inherently identified by their position in the document
> > >that contains them--IDs are just a convenience.
> > 
> > So how about removing the type ID / and the uniqueness requirement?

EK


>By "shouldn't be required" I meant "shouldn't have a default value
>prescription of #REQUIRED". The ID attribute is still *useful* for
>convenient addressing and should be declared as type ID. But the
>existence or non-existence of an ID value on a topic is *not* a
>prerequisite for accurate (or even convenient) addressing, especially
>when using XPath. For example, with XPath, it's almsot as easy to
>address by unique topic name as it is to address by ID value. 

Is it no more than a convenience? I think it was one of Steve's 
comments that he was against the idea of using id idref pairs for
navigation. If that view is supported the id value would surely
be required.

DaveP







-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Get FREE long-distance phone calls on Tellme!
Click here for the scoop:
http://click.egroups.com/1/9531/4/_/337252/_/971155632/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com