W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cdf@w3.org > January 2008

Re: xml:id

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:41:03 -0800
To: Timur Mehrvarz <timur.mehrvarz@web.de>
Cc: "public-cdf@w3.org" <public-cdf@w3.org>, Eric Seidel <eric@webkit.org>
Message-id: <134F85AA-0997-47B6-AEF0-1824F1F6CBF6@apple.com>

SVG Tiny 1.2 allows both I'd and xml:id, so content using it is  
conforming.



On Jan 3, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Timur Mehrvarz <timur.mehrvarz@web.de>  
wrote:

>
> I'm forwarding this message I received from Eric Seidel a few days  
> back. Their decision makes me a uncomfortable. People can use xml:id  
> in their XHTML+SVG content and be compliant with one browser,  
> currently. Or they can use id without xml: and be compliant with 3  
> browsers. But not with the SVG Tiny 1.2 spec. Or am I missing  
> something?
>
> Timur
>
> On 28.12.2007, at 07:45, Eric Seidel wrote:
>
>> After some discussion in #webkit, we've decided against  
>> implementing xml:id:
>>
>> http://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16505
>>
>> xml:id has proven pretty irrelevant on the web so far (I can't  
>> think of a single page which actually uses it).  It provides little- 
>> to-no benefit over "id" as specified by SVG and HTML and just adds  
>> more unnecessary complexity to WebKit.
>>
>> I would recommend that WICD consider removing xml:id from their  
>> list of requirements ...
>>>
>>
>> Certainly if there was a major shift in the web and real websites  
>> actually started to use xml:id, or there was a demonstrable benefit  
>> to its support in WebKit, we'd reconsider.
>>
>> -eric
>
>
Received on Friday, 4 January 2008 02:41:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:42 GMT