On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 17:11:16 -0500 (EST), Richard Knapp wrote:
>>> - I don't think you can use ID as an attribute and as a type (however, neither DTDExplorer or Xeena complained).
>>My view is generally that if the spec doesn't say I can't, then I can.
>>The name of an attribute matches the production "Name". I think the
>>confusion is because of the fact that if an attribute's name is "ID"
>>that does not IMPLY that it is of type ID, but if you can find someplace
>>where it says it is FORBIDEN, let me know. A real objection to using ID
>>as an attribute name is that it might confuse people.
>I think there is a difference between what the spec does and does not allow and
>what is good XML technique. There was a _long_ discussion on xml-dev on best
>Schema practices. There are things not prohibited in the Schema Rec that are still
>not good ideas. In this case, the main item - at least for me - is the confusion
>between the attribute name and the attribute value.
Apparently, the use of ID as an attribute and type is widely used. It is one of the more accepted things to do. I am wrong on
this issue.
- Richard Knapp
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 18:00:01 CEST