> PS. Then again, I'm not PI-allergic. Indeed, some of us are dismayed that
> (for example) for DTD-less ID recognition we're now going to be herded into
> a hard-coded, goofy-looking "xml:id", intead of something like
>
> <?xml:id-attrs po-num id cust-num?>
>
> OK, *that* would probably require an "official" standard to go anywhere.
The people who are allergic to DTDs are just as allergic to PIs. Anyhow,
since it's not XML-valid (or SGML-valid) to have more than one id per
element, there's no real point in having more than one attribute name
for ids in a given document type. If you need more complex identity
constraints than that, XSLT is your friend. It would have been better
to say that attributes named "id" are always of type ID to begin with,
but it's too late for that, even though I bet the overwhelming majority
of them are.
--
John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
All "isms" should be "wasms". --Abbie
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "rng-users" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
