W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > August 2006

Re: ID case sensitivity still not explained

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 07:57:27 +0200
To: Barry <polisource@yahoo.com>
cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <a02020014-1047-ppc-97699422D9D546CEBE1F1708012A5C1F@pounder.neutri.no>

Barry <polisource@yahoo.com> wrote:

>The validator gave me an "already defined" error when I used IDs that differ
>by case only, but [7.5.2] says "id = name [CS]," which means id is case
>sensitive and IDs that differ by case should be considered unique and not
>produce "already defined" errors. […]
>
>At <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2001Jul/0075> it says
>the wording will be changed, but the wording at [7.5.2] still doesn't tell me
>that can't use IDs that differ only by case. Am I looking at the wrong
>specification?

No, but you're looking at the wrong section of the right specification. :-)

[[[
  12.2.1 Syntax of anchor names

  An anchor name is the value of either the name or id attribute when used in
  the context of anchors. Anchor names must observe the following rules:

    • Uniqueness: Anchor names must be unique within a document. Anchor names
      that differ only in case may not appear in the same document.

    • String matching: Comparisons between fragment identifiers and anchor names
      must be done by exact (case-sensitive) match.
[…]
  ILLEGAL EXAMPLE:

  The following example is illegal with respect to uniqueness since the two
  names are the same except for case:

  <P><A name="xxx">...</A>
  <P><A name="XXX">...</A>
[…]
]]] <http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/links.html#h-12.2.1>


>I felt proud of myself for being able to find what seems to be
>the relevant part of the latest HTML specification by navigating the not so
>user friendly information starting at w3.org, but now I'm not so sure.

Oh you should feel proud alright! Not only did you find your way to the right
specification, but you even managed to find the obscure thread that discusses
the obscure reasons why the spec defines this in such a mind-bendingly insane
way.

You done good! :-)


>P.S. Why haven't I been able to subscribe
>mail@polisource.com or barry@polisource.com to this or
>www-html@w3.org for the last few years?

Hmm. Do you perhaps run any kind of anti-spam filter on these? When you
subscribe, and when you first post, to any w3.org list you get a verification
email and if these get dropped by your spam filters...

For help, take a look at <http://www.w3.org/Mail/Request> (which includes
contact info for the human currently dealing with lists).

-- 
  “You gonna take advice from somebody who slapped DEE BARNES?!” -- eminem
Received on Wednesday, 30 August 2006 05:57:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:22 GMT