RE: [dita] xml:id [was: MEETING MINUTES -- 19 Apr 2005 -- DITA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE]

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
















dita message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]








Subject: RE: [dita] xml:id [was: MEETING MINUTES -- 19 Apr 2005 -- DITA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE]




From: "Paul Grosso" <>
To: "Christopher Wong" <>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 16:07:53 -0400









 
1.  xml:id doesn't buy us anything. The point is that 
I expect users will be
    getting used to xml:id over time and 
will be surprised it doesn't work
    in DITA to specify an 
id.
 
2.  If some attributes are really IDs and others 
aren't, then one might argue
    that giving them different 
names seems obvious and less confusing than
    using the same name 
for things that are different.
 
paul


  
  
  From: Christopher Wong 
  [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, 06 May, 2005 
  10:57
To: Paul Grosso
Cc: 
  
Subject: Re: [dita] xml:id [was: MEETING 
  MINUTES -- 19 Apr 2005 -- DITA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE]


  A couple of things come to mind:

  
    What does xml:id buy 
    us? I would expect anything that processes DITA to be DITA-aware, so the 
    need for an explicit xml:id 
    is not clear to me. 
    In DITA, topic level ids are of type ID, but content ids are not. The 
    latter are explicitly not of type ID to allow duplication. Are we going to 
    split the id names? Sounds like a pain. Chris

Paul Grosso 
  wrote:

  
            - Issue 31 -- Side-by-side implementation of xml:id?
                - I couldn't capture the discussion.
                - Let's keep it on the list for 1.1 and keep
                  discussing it.