- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 12:07:14 +0200
- To: daniel@veillard.com
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Timur Mehrvarz <timur.mehrvarz@web.de>, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org, public-cdf@w3.org, Eric Seidel <eric@webkit.org>
On Jan 9, 2008, at 07:01, Daniel Veillard wrote: > On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 03:25:32AM -0800, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> On Jan 7, 2008, at 4:18 PM, Timur Mehrvarz wrote: >> >>> Are you really suggesting for authors to duplicate id and xml:id, in >>> order to cope with this? >> >> I can't speak for Henri, but I would suggest authors use only id in >> SVG content, and not xml:id, since id is more compatible and xml:id >> offers no advantages for publicly deployed web content. I'm not sure who "you" in the question referred to, but I agree with Maciej. > Do SVG implementation actually parse/handle the DTD embedded in Web > documents ? They don't generally. > I doubt it, in that case you rely on hardcoded behaviour of the > engine, You don't need to rely on SVG engine-level hardcoding if you move the hardcoding layer (at least conceptually) to between the XML processor and the DOM builder. After all, that's were you'd put an xml:id Processor. > and in my opinion it's better to rely on a low level hardcoded > behaviour (basically xml:id is an hardcoded DTD bypass) > than one coming from upper layers which are less generic and > sometimes can be conflicting. I'm suggesting putting the IDness assignment exactly on the level of lowness you'd put the xml:id Processor. > What you are suggesting may be better from a code behaviour > viewpoint *now* but from an user data point of view, > generic processing, long term management of those, it sounds safer > to use an ID handled at the XML level, xml:id isn't on the XML level. It is immediately on one level above the XML level. I'm suggesting assigning IDness to id in no namespace (possibly making a grandfathered exception for CML elements) on the level where the xml:id spec specifies assigning IDness to id in the http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace . What I'm suggesting is exactly as low or high level as xml:id. > and since DTD processing is not guaranteed xml:id should be the most > reliable option. That's a false dichotomy. > There is certainly Web engine which don't recognize xml:id now, but > if the web content is targetting reuse and long lifetime I would > avoid relying just on the SVG hardcoded behaviour. Considering long life time, browsers can never stop supporting the IDness of id in no namespace on XHTML, MathML and SVG elements. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2008 10:07:34 UTC