- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 23:45:33 +0000 (UTC)
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > Real content management systems are like fine-grained mash-up systems. > Sometimes the input is legacy and is farmed out in various formats. > Sometimes the output is legacy (sequence of bytes provided to the public > must not change) even though the inputs have been "managed" into more > reusable parts. Both the input and the output are valid "text/html" > even if neither is conforming HTML5. The whole point is that "valid text/html" and "conforming HTML5" should be the same, and that legacy documents that were valid text/html in the past but use now obsolete features should no longer be considered valid text/html. > HTML5 draft says (in a section about validators): (That section isn't about validators, the next one is.) > Authors should not specify the name attribute on a elements. > If the attribute is present, its value must not be the empty string. > In earlier versions of the language, this attribute served a similar > role as the id attribute. The id attribute should be used instead. > > HTML 4.01 says (in the section on <a>): > > Attribute definitions > name = cdata[CS] > This attribute names the current anchor so that it may be the > destination of another link. That's inaccurate, by the way. The attributes does more than that, e.g. it also affects HTMLCollection processing. > The value of this attribute must > be a unique anchor name. The scope of this name is the current > document. Note that this attribute shares the same name space > as the id attribute. > > HTML5 draft doesn't define what the attribute means -- it only says > it once had a role similar to id. The attribute doesn't mean anything any more (though it has some authoring conformance criteria). > 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. Fixed the part about uniqueness. The anchor name part is already defined as part of the "text/html" MIME type definition in HTML5. > 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. Fixed. > 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 will be resolved when we fill in the attribute index. Thank you for giving actual concrete feedback that I could address. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2009 23:44:44 UTC