- From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 13:01:00 +0200
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- CC: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, www-style@w3.org, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Chris Lilley wrote: > HST> Personally I would settle for DTD and W3C XML Schema in some detail, > HST> refer to 'other/external methods' and give xml:id as an e.g. > > That would be suboptimal, for example there would be no conformance > requirement and thus no xml:id samples in the test suite. Really, why should the *CSS* test suite check for conformance on xml:id? Really, theoretically you can implement just for HTML or for neither XML nor HTML and still be conformant I believe. Also, the arguments given that Amaya supports xml:id and that now only one other browser has to support it to meet the requirements is nonsense as Amaya hasn't implemented all of CSS. Two interoperable implementations means that there are two implementations which implement *every* feature of the specification in an interoperable way. You can't say those two implementations support that feature and those two support that, et cetera. There have to be two implementations that support all of it and are interoperable. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Monday, 9 May 2005 11:01:17 UTC