W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > October 2006

Re: [XBL] XBL 2.0 id and xml:id

From: Dean Jackson <dino@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:53:58 +1000
Message-Id: <3CFC061D-5126-4B14-8273-0CA13EEA61E8@w3.org>
Cc: public-appformats@w3.org, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>

On 11/10/2006, at 9:48 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> Does the xml:id specification allow it? If so, then it's allowed.
>> Is "xml:id" attribute forbidden on xbl elements?
> It has nothing to do with XBL, and XBL doesn't disallow it (it just  
> says
> that unexpected attributes are in error; if the UA is expecting the
> attribute, then it's allowed).
>>> The two specifications are completely orthogonal and there does not
>>> seem to be any good reason for them to unnecessarily cross-reference
>>> each other.
>> XBL is using XML namespaces and XML specifications. It mentioned  
>> them.
> Well, it has to mention them, since it is dependent on them. Their  
> rules
> directly affect XBL. Without them, XBL would be drastically different.
>> xml:base is mentioned too.
> Again, it has to be, because there are things that xml:base affects  
> in XBL
> quite fundamentally.
>> Is "xml:id" attribute forbidden on xbl elements?
>> If not, why not using it, more than defining id?
> Why use it? It's longer and makes DOM manipulation a lot harder.  
> All the
> other languages that we'd expect authors to use with XBL use "id", not
> "xml:id", and consistency is key in language design. Also, XBL  
> isn't the
> kind of language you would use in an automated environment (which is
> xml:id's main benefit). In conclusion, I don't see any advantage to
> forcing authors to use "xml:id" instead of "id". As noted earlier, if
> authors _want_ to use xml:id, they are of course allowed to do so.

The Working Group agrees with Ian's position here. Karl, could you  
please respond to say whether or not you accept the resolution (that  
the XBL specification doesn't need to specify anything in regards to  


Dean, on behalf of the WAF WG.
Received on Thursday, 26 October 2006 10:58:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:50:05 UTC