[Cosmo-dev] sharing update 12/19

[Phillip J. Eby]

At 09:55 AM 12/20/2006 -0800, Brian Moseley wrote:
>On 12/20/06, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
>
>>Right; this is the main difference I wanted to point out.  The EimmlSpec
>>page has eim:uuid attributes on the record elements as well as the
>>recordset element, but the one on the recordset is the only one with a
>>fixed item association, and thus the one that should be used to determine
>>what item the records are associated with.
>
>acknowledged.
>
>>I see you've also changed to calling the recordset-level attribute
>>"eim:uuid", which isn't necessary (because the item uuid can only occur on
>>an eim:records element), but doesn't hurt anything either, except perhaps
>>understanding.
>
>i think it's my understanding that's hurt. what's wrong with the attribute 
>name?

Namespaced attributes in XML can in principle appear on many elements; they 
don't "belong" to one specific element type.  But the attribute being 
discussed here *is* specific to a single element type: the recordset element.


>also, i think you mean to be talking about the recordset element, not
>the records element. please confirm.

Yes, sorry; I had just seen a sample somewhere that had 'eim:records' while 
reviewing older stuff, and it polluted my brain.  :)