Internal subset equivalent in new schema proposals?

[John Cowan]

Paul Prescod wrote:

> If I have an element that teaches a topic, and I give it an ID, and then I
> delete that chapter, but there is another chapter that could also teach
> the topic, shouldn't I be able to transfer the ID?

IMO no.  Two objects with the same ID are really the *same* object,
not just equivalent for a specified purpose.  (To a learner, your
chapters might be equivalent; to a bibliographer, they wouldn't be.)

> Anyhow, whether names are arbitrary or not, the real problem is that there
> is only one ID namespace when we really need many of them. IDs name an
> element, but elements can need multiple names, just as anything else can.

Yes, but IDs aren't the way to model user-friendly names.  This
email has many "names", but only one Message-ID, which is as it should
be; that Message-ID is globally unique unless there are bugs somewhere.

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan at ccil.org
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

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)