- From: Cyril Concolato <cyril.concolato@enst.fr>
- Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 13:37:26 +0100
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren a écrit : > > On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 04:25:27 +0200, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org> wrote: >> * unexpected attributes are defined by the specification >> if not, that will have to be defined, back to the comment on >> expected context. > > It seems pretty clear to me, as an implementor. Either the attribute > is supported (expected) or not (unexpected). If we support xml:id we > can expect it on every element and therefore it wouldn't be unexpected > and it would just work fine. As an author, the question is: Can you expect your content using xml:id to work in every XBL UA implementation ? I think the answer is no. My reading is then, that XBL per se does not support xml:id. It does not forbid its use either but to work interoperably one would have to define another specification/profile XBL+XMLID. I don't mind. My point is that the term 'expected' should be clarified. You seem to think: A) it's expected by the implementation (which implements XBL and other specifications), some think it's B) expected by the specification. A implies B but the opposite is not true. Usually when reading specifications you think of B. Please clarify. Regards, Cyril Concolato > > > --Anne van Kesteren > <http://annevankesteren.nl/> > <http://www.opera.com/> > >
Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2006 12:37:57 UTC