On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 14:10, Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Somewhat OT, I think that the current use of the id attribute in the Woody widget definition (WD) file is unfortunate. Id attributes are supposed to be unique in an XML document according to the standard,
I don't think so. An attribute called "id" has no special meaning in XML.
See http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/#id :
Validity constraint: ID
Values of type ID MUST match the Name production. A name MUST NOT appear more than once in an XML document as a value of this type; i.e., ID values MUST uniquely identify the elements which bear them.
and as id in WD files rather describe a relative position in a widget hierarchy, there are no reason for them to be unique. IMO it would be better to use the attribute name "ref" for refering to relative positions as in XForms. See also http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25300.
What about replaceing "id" with "ref" in the WD files when we rename Woody to CForms?
I'm not really convinced. The "id" attribute defines the id for the widget, and does not reference it, as "ref" seems to suggest.
<snip/>
Yes, there might be better names for the concept then "ref". What I mean is that the id attribute in the WD file not uniquely identifies a widget, let say that we have a widget definition:
<wd:repeater id="foo" initial-size="3">
<wd:widgets>
<wd:field id="foo">
...
</wd:field>
</wd:widgets>
</wd:repeater>Then it is paths like foo, foo.1.foo, foo.2.foo etc that uniquely identifies the widget.
/Daniel
