W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2005

RE: CSS selectors and xml:id

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 09:36:49 -0400
Message-ID: <F13E1BF26B19BA40AF3C0DE7D4DA0C03046FA39F@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>
Cc: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>, <www-style@w3.org>, <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ian Hickson
> Sent: Monday, 09 May, 2005 7:46
> To: Chris Lilley
> Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann; www-style@w3.org; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: CSS selectors and xml:id

> Well, here the CSS spec is providing an abstract interface, 
> the concept of 
> "attributes that are declared to be of type ID". It is then up to the 
> xml:id specification, or some other specification, to state 
> that xml:id attributes are of type ID.
> Unfortunately, the xml:id specification explicitly doesn't 
> say this. But 
> that is a problem with the xml:id spec (which I raised at 
> last call), not a problem with the CSS spec.

Ian, is this the "ID assignment and the empty string" thread at
http://www.w3.org/XML/2004/xml-id/lc-status/status-report.html ?

In that thread, the XML Core WG responded saying that we were
changing the spec to refer to "ID type assignment", and you
responded at
that this satisfied you.  Do you believe that the wording at
is still problematic in this regard?

Received on Monday, 9 May 2005 13:38:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:18 UTC