 |
 |
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,