Hello!
> > I also wonder why not use xml:id
> > instead of MADS's own ID.
> It's not MAD's own ID, it's xs:id.
I had noticed that the type of MADS' @ID was xs:ID, and it is the reason
why I suggested the use of @xml:id.
> record when it is encapsulated
> within a wrapper record,
It seems that this problem could be better solved with xs:keyref and
xs:key (these are a totally different things than xsl:key) which offers a
flexibility unavailable with xs:IDREF and xs:ID together. In "ID/IDREF
Versus xs:key/xs:keyref" pp. 149-150 in the book "XML Schema", Eric van
der Vlist explains that quite well.
I mean that the usefulness of the type xs:ID is mainly both in the past
and in the future. At the time when @xml:id was not yet available, ID's
could only be expressed with the type xs:ID on a local element. In XML
Schema 1.1, several attributes (with different names) will probably be
allowed to have the type xs:ID even when these attributes are placed on
the same element in an instance document, and therefore, xml:id will not
be enough as an attribute name for attributes of type xs:ID. But XML
Schema 1.1 is not (yet) a W3C recommendation.
Regards!
SaaĊĦha,
|
