- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:32:44 +0200
- To: "Robert Burns" <rob@robburns.com>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:18:42 +0200, Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com> wrote: > "The value must be unique in the subtree within which the element finds > itself and must contain at least one character." > > I'm not sure I understand what this means, but it sounds to me like @id > attributes need only be unique within a particular node (or within a > depth traversal of a node)? It would be good if subtree were defined. I think it is meant (besides document uniqueness) to also cover cases like DocumentFragment, etc. > "This specification doesn't preclude an element having multiple IDs, if > other mechanisms (e.g. DOM Core methods) can set an element's ID in a > way that doesn't conflict with the id attribute." > > Again, I don't really understand what this paragraph is saying. Is this > multiple attributes with different names all taking a value of type ID? It is about multiple _attributes_ of type ID. For instance: <div id="foo" xml:id="bar"> (Although it seems that implementations are leaning towards not supporting multiple attributes of type ID at all for performance reasons. (See the Gecko bug on xml:id for more information.)) > Also, what are the use-cases this is trying to address. Why would we > need to have multiple @id attributes on the same element? It's there to clarify that the specification does not forbid xml:id if I remember correctly. > I don't think this really is related to DTD or RelaxNG or XSD, etc. > However, I look at the HTML4 recommendation and the XML 1 recommendation > and we do not appear to fit in with respect to ID. That doesn't sound > like a good thing (in terms of document conformance). That's because the HTML4 and XML attributes of type ID are based on DTDs, as Henri explained. We're not constrained by that. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2007 15:33:02 UTC