W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-id@w3.org > February 2005

Re: 4. ID assignment and the empty string

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 20:37:52 -0800
Message-ID: <1105706403.20050202203752@w3.org>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, public-xml-id@w3.org

On Wednesday, February 2, 2005, 3:45:44 PM, Ian wrote:


IH> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Norman Walsh wrote:
>> 
>> 1. Rather than speaking of "ID assignment", the specification now
>> speaks of "ID type assignment": [...]
>> 
>> 2. We added a note to make it clear that application behavior (e.g.,
>> whether or not the getElementById() function actually accepts the
>> empty string as a legitimate value) is beyond the scope of this
>> specification. [...]
>> 
>> Please let us know if this change satisfies your comment. (Our CR 
>> decision call is tomorrow morning, so a prompt reply would be most 
>> appreciated.)

IH> This change does satisfy my concern, thanks!

Leaving something deliberately unspecified is one way to proceed, but
not a way that I like.


>>   Application-level processing of IDs, including which elements can
>>   actually be addressed by which ID values, is beyond the scope of
>>   this specification.

IH> Just out of interest, which specification _does_ have this in scope?


That was my concern on seeing this resolution. While it makes the xml:id
spec more self contained, it also increases the risk of lack of clarity
or a logical disconnect for specifications that might make use of xml:id
(or makes it more likely that such specifications need to be revised to
make use of xml:id).

Falling between two stools is a problem; this resolution seems to
increase the gap between stools.


-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Thursday, 3 February 2005 04:37:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:38 GMT