> >>I don't know if the attribute should be called "name"? Isn't "id" the > >>right one for that? This would also ensure there are no duplicates in a > >>sitemap. > > > >I had exactly the same thought, but didn't want to be the first to muddy > > the waters after such a heavy discussion. > >id will align it with the concept usually used in other XML schemas. > >For example in ANT, each element has an id and can be refered anywhere in > >the script later by a refid attribute. > > I also thought of "id", but I'd like to avoid this no-duplicate > constraint, hence "name" : a sitemap is often consituted of similar > pipeline patterns, and the same name will IMO often be associated with > statements having the same role in different branches of the sitemap.
<snip/> > An important difference between a sitemap and an Ant file is that > pipeline construction follows a path in the sitemap hierarchy, and thus > a statement cannot use variables defined by a statement that isn't one > of its ancestors. This isn't true in Ant files where targets can be > referenced from anywhere in the file. > > I also discussed about name overloading on a single path at > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=103432718409833&w=2 > > I guess you may not like this overloading. In that case, what about > requiring uniqueness of names _on a path_, meaning the same name can be > used in different branches of the sitemap tree ? I totally aggree here with Sylvain. But I don't see it as a big problem as long as it's clearly stated in the docs. So I am pretty much biased... +0 for name -0 for id -- Torsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
