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

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

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:25:27 +0900
Message-Id: <7A1E82D8-9A8F-4CB0-9B31-50B6DDD81CCE@w3.org>
Cc: public-appformats@w3.org
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>


Le 11 oct. 2006 à 08:48, Ian Hickson a écrit :

> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Karl Dubost wrote:
>>
>> <xbl xmlns="http://www.w3.org/ns/xbl">
>>  <binding id="nav-then-main" xml:id="foo">
>>   <template xml:id="nav-then-main">
>>    <div id="wrapper">
>>     <div id="col2"><content includes=".nav"/></div>
>>     <div id="col1"><content includes=".main"/></div>
>>    </div>
>>   </template>
>>   <resources>
>>    <style>
>>     #wrapper { display: table-row; }
>>     #col1, #col2 { display: table-cell; }
>>    </style>
>>   </resources>
>>  </binding>
>> </xbl>
>>
>> authorized?
>
> Does the xml:id specification allow it? If so, then it's allowed.

http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11/#id
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#id
I do not think it is 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).

Here it seems that something and its contrary is said.

* XBL specification defines XBL technologies
* unexpected attributes are defined by the specification
   if not, that will have to be defined, back to the comment on  
expected context.

Following the paragraph above:

	1. XBL doesn't disallow xml:id
	2. unexpected attributes (xml:id) are in error

then XBL disallow xml:id

UA implements a lot of technologies. It is orthogonal to the point  
here, when UA implement XBL, they have to follow the requirements  
defined in the specification.



>>> 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.

It doesn't seem they are allowed to do so by specification  
definition. Though it is unrelated to the issue of using xml:id in  
XBL instead of id.

The explanation given about the ease of use are justifications which  
seem to be reasonable.

I am then satisfied with my initial comments.

-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Friday, 27 October 2006 02:26:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:20 GMT