XSchema Spec, Section 2.2 (Element Declarations), Draft 3

[Simon St.Laurent]

>Two nits:
>
>1) The More element should be optional (needs a "?").

Totally correct.  Will be fixed quickly.

>2) Why is id optional?  Is this to allow people to decide for themselves 
>if they want to be reused?

I have a few problems with requiring id.

First, I'm still one of those terrible hand-coders.  Being required to come up 
with an ID for every piece is a hassle, especially for bits I'll never reuse. 
This is not, of course, an issue for the authoring tools that will someday 
(hopefully) take over the landscape.

Second, I know I can grab the same info with an XPointer without needing to go 
to an ID.  It may not be as quick, and the final syntax may be a little murky, 
but I'm sure the functionality will be there.

I think id should be there - it makes life much easier for authoring and 
management programs.  I don't see a compelling reason to require it, given the 
improvements in linking that XPointer makes possible.  There may, of course, 
be such a need that I haven't found yet.

Simon St.Laurent
Dynamic HTML: A Primer / XML: A Primer / Cookies



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)