[Bug 17298] valid character range for identifiers too broad

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17298

Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |robin@w3.org
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX
         AssignedTo|dave.null@w3.org            |robin@w3.org

--- Comment #9 from Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> 2012-09-05 14:38:04 UTC ---
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
you have additional information and would like the Editor to reconsider, please
reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest
title and text for the Tracker Issue; or you may create a Tracker Issue
yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:


   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Rejected
Rationale:

(In reply to comment #0)
> This makes it essentially impossible to extend the HTML fragment identifier
> syntax with new addressing schemes such as
> <http://simonstl.com/articles/cssFragID.html> or with XPointer.

The first problem with changing this is that it will break existing content. If
you try the following:

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang='en'>
  <head>
    <meta charset='utf-8'>
    <title>ID test</title>
  </head>
  <body>
    <a href='#css(.foo)'>link to css()</a>
    <div style='height: 1000px'>haha</div>
    <div id='css(.foo)'>link to me!</div>
    <div style='height: 1000px'>haha</div>
  </body>
</html>

you can see that it works. And yes, there's content with crazy IDs out there —
this has been loose for a long while by now.

Additionally, I don't believe that it poses a major threat to the extensibility
of fragments processing (and I say this as an enthusiastic supporter of Simon's
CSS Frag IDs — I helped with the spec, arranged the CG, spoke of it at
conferences, etc.). While there are indeed IDs out there that have (, ), and a
bunch of other unfriendly characters, the odds that there are some that match
"css(VALID_SELECTOR)" are low. In other words, the risk induced by collisions
is sufficiently negligible that we may proceed with no fear. It merely places a
requirement on the specification extending fragment processing that it states
that it must be processed *before* ID processing takes place, and pass what it
does not understand itself to ID processing (as last resort).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2012 14:38:13 UTC