I'm glad that xml:id has been added, but I wonder why id has been retained? It seems like needless duplication that can only serve to confuse. I would prefer to just stick with one or the other, preferably xml:id. This would make queries to find the IDs of an element much simpler in, for example, XPath.
For similar reasons, i question the retention of the now redundant a element. It's just additional baggage for the spec and parsers. Simpler is better. Any element you can take out, you should take out.
On the other hand, I do wish href were replaced with xlink:href. Using XLink 1.1 and xml:id would remove the need for HTML specific link and ID handling. It would make processing XHTML documents that much simpler.
-- Elliotte Rusty Harold [EMAIL PROTECTED] Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published! http://www.cafeaulait.org/books/javaio2/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596527500/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA/
