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
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-id/2005Feb/0004
that this satisfied you.  Do you believe that the wording at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/CR-xml-id-20050208/
is still problematic in this regard?

paul
Received on Monday, 9 May 2005 13:38:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:37 GMT