> Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> > Let me phrase the question this way: regarding validity and validity
> > only, not the semantics of the attribute, is there any objection to
> > an xml:id attribute that is not equally true of xml:base? So far I
> > can't see one.
I wouldn't take the resounding silence from the punters on xml:base
to be an endorsement.
All these changes should be bundled together into some unified
pre-announced version-up of XML, rather than tacked on willy
nilly.
One of the lessons, perhaps, of SGML is that the only
optional parts/add-ons of/to standards that survive are the ones that
almost everyone implements: if only one or two players
support an optional part of a standard intended for
interoperability, it won't last.
Cheers
Rick
