W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2006

Re: Selectors: section 6.5: Error

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 19:26:53 +0000 (UTC)
To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0601061924180.9516@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, David Woolley wrote:
> 
> That depends on the physical implementation and is one of the penalties 
> of a policy that there is no invalid code (or as some would prefer to to 
> describe it, that all possible error recovery is uniquely specified), in 
> that it puts constraints on the physical implementation that would not 
> be needed for valid input.

Uh. Actually, this is proving the exact opposite of what you want it to 
prove.

CSS has never described how to handle this error case (the error case 
being the document having duplicate IDs).

And so UAs did what they wanted. Which was to apply ID rules to any 
elements with that ID, duplicates be damned.

You're now saying that the spec should have required that only one of the 
duplicate IDs should be honoured, and that the fact that this would be bad 
for performance is because the spec defined behaviour for all error 
conditions.

....Eh?

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 6 January 2006 19:26:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:42 GMT