W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > October 2013

[Bug 23480] Allow xml:id="Foo" (on the same conditions that xml:lang="Foo")

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 14:00:00 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-23480-2486-BSTWJX6d9L@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23480

Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-i
                   |                            |ua.no

--- Comment #2 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> ---
(In reply to Henri Sivonen from comment #1)
> I'm strongly opposed to this. xml:id has a high implementation cost--both in
> browsers and in other apps.

Let me just point out that

1) The use case si implementations/apps that (already) support XInclude.
2) Browsers do not support XInclude and are as such not the target.
3) Per what the W3C’ NU validator accepts, the W3C community already accepts
many things in HTML5 that browsers do not support, for instance RDFa.

I agree that, given for instance the precedence of RDFa, xml:id should perhaps
rather be specced in a separate spec. However, I thought it good to start here.

> I think the HTML spec should avoid any
> appearance of suggesting that using xml:id  or implementing xml:id  might be
> a good idea. (I have actually implemented xml:id in a non-browser app, so I
> have some implementation experience.)

I “can live with” speccing it in a separate spec. That should be clear from the
initial comment.

> Also, use case starts with "An author with a Web site which follows polyglot
> markup"... Sigh.

And the trouble is?

> Please WONTFIX.

Is WONTFIX the right resolution if it is going into a separate spec? Just
asking.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2013 14:00:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:45 UTC