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 TECHNICALCOMMITTEE]
From: Christopher Wong <>
To: Paul Grosso <>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 12:29:46 -0400
It sounds like we need some agreement on what the "id" attribute should
mean. Right now, I view this as an attribute that allows an element to
be a target for a href. This is true regardless of whether this
attribute is of type ID or NMNTOKEN. I'm not convinced that we need to
introduce xml:id and split the attribute into two. It complicates
implementation and confuses the author who would have to use two
distinct attributes as link/conref targets. It is one thing for a user
to expect xml:id if it is in fact an xml:id. It is another thing for a
user to look for a link/conref target and have to deal with something
that can be "xml:id" or "id".
Chris
Paul Grosso wrote:
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.
