W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: ISSUE-53: mediatypereg - suggest closing on 2009-09-03

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:30:29 -0700
Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <70007AC3-22A1-4480-8605-0C681050AF9E@apple.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>

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  

> 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,  

>  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.

Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2009 23:31:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:54 UTC