2006/3/16, Sylvain Hellegouarch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Calling such an attribute 'id' is a mistake in my opinion as it confuses > with the actual ID of the element itself within the XML document it > belongs to
It could lead to confusion, but as Atom doesn't define such an attribute in its own namespace (or on elements in its own namespace) and as no other extension that I know of do that either, I don't think it really matters… > and it makes impossible for another element within the document to > have the same value as an 'id'. In your blog, you actually wrote: > The other problem I have with naming this attribute id is that no other > element of the document can use the same attribute name and attribute > value since that within an XML document, these are unique (unless I am > mistaken of course). I'm sorry to have to tell you that you *are* mistaken… Having an attribute named "id" doesn't make it an "ID" (in the sense of a unique identifier throughout the document, such as the ID type in a DTD of xs:ID in XMLSchema), otherwise: - you wouldn't have to declare them explicitely in your DTDs and there wouldn't be a need for an ID (resp. xs:ID) type in DTD (resp. XMLSchema) - the validity constraint "One ID Per Element Type" [http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#one-id-per-el] could never be met as soon as you'd declare an ID attribute with a name different from "id" - there wouldn't have been a need for xml:id [http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-id/] > I would rather move the content of that attribute as a text element of the > 'in-reply-to' element (as does the atom:id element). Eventually, I'd rather rename it to resource-id… -- Thomas Broyer
