- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:30:29 -0700
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Thanks Roy, this was much more specific in identifying what you think is missing. On Aug 25, 2009, at 4:21 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > HTML5 draft doesn't define what the attribute means -- it only says > it once had a role similar to id. So you think it should say it's for naming link targets? (Or at least that this is one purpose, since <a name> causes additional behavior in various DOM APIs?) > It doesn't specify that its value must be a unique anchor name, > which is a significant statement for > link checking software that verifies such things as destinations. The lack of uniqueness requirement seems like a specific and actionable problem. Ian, is there any reason HTML5 drops this HTML4.01 requirement? > It doesn't specify that it shares the same name space as the id > attributes, which again is significant for both link checkers > and content management. Seems to me something this would need to be stated to make the uniqueness requirement well-defined. Although, "shares the same namespace" seems overbroad and inaccurate - it shares the same namespace for purposes of fragment ID resolution, but not for, say, getElementById(). > Moreover, what it does say about the > subject is placed far away from where a reader would be expected > to look up a definition for this funky "name" attribute they > happened to see on an anchor in some "text/html". This is a valid concern, but I think the location of the definition is a separate issue from whether there is a sufficient definition at all. Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2009 23:31:13 UTC