On 2008-01-31 00:30, Joe wrote: > From http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-id/ > > """An xml:id processor must assure that the following constraints > hold for all xml:id attributes: > > The normalized value of the attribute is an NCName according > to the Namespaces in XML Recommendation which has the same > version as the document in which this attribute occurs (NCName > for XML 1.0, or NCName for XML 1.1).""" > > Doesn't this mean you can't use a URI as an ID?
No, not from what I can tell. An ID must be unique within the document. Regarding naming it must start with a letter or an underscore. Other than that, there is nothing indicating that it cannot be an IRI. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Daniel > Aleksandersen Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 1:41 PM > To: Atom emailing list > Subject: atom:id element vs. xml:id attribute > > > Hi emailing list, (message contains Unicode characters) > > Why does Atom use a special id element for identification instead of > relying on the xml:id attribute? Currently, I apply an identical value > to both. > > <feed … xml:id="urn:uuid:1"> > <id>urn:uuid:1</id> > <entry xml:id="urn:uuid:2"> > <id>urn:uuid:2</id> > </entry> > </feed> > > The xml:id attribute makes parsing easier in a lot of environments— > especially in PHP 5 DOM XML—, but since the Atom format requires an id > element; I have to include that as well. What decision lead to the > inclusion of the required atom:id element instead of the xml:id? Is > there a point I am missing somewhere? > > xml:id is perfectly capable of performing the task of atom:id. I cannot > see why there would be any need for any special id element in any XML > format when we have got xml:id. -- Daniel Aleksandersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
