W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2014

Re: XML:ID extension spec proposal to HTML5 documents

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 23:48:25 +0100
To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Cc: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net) <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Message-ID: <20140203234825491491.198b4891@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Robin Berjon, Mon, 03 Feb 2014 12:25:28 +0100:
> On 31/01/2014 23:48 , Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> But as of right now, I am unaware of tools that have taken that
>> approach.
> But the fact is that they could.

I continue to agree.

> The solution to the present problem 
> is to have XInclude (and in general XML tool chains) recognise id as 
> an ID in an HTML context.

I believe XInclude says nothing about *how* attributes are assigned the 
ID type.

OK. I take it that you want me to add to the spec that, for documents 
in the XHTML namespace, XML tools should just assign ID type to the id 
attribute. Unless I misunderstood something, I will do so ASAP. (I hope 
hat the SVG 2.0 has made progress in this field so I can steal 
something from them.)

> There is no need to add xml:id everywhere 
> to support that.

But the fact is that there is a need, right now. For instance, Prince 
XML, the HTML5-supporting PDF formatter for HTML/XML documents, 
supports XInclude too, but does not assign ID type to HTML’s id 
attribute. So the document must eventually describe both methods - the 
future method and the current method, IMO. Unless there are some 
stakeholders that are very tightly married to the xml:id way, it will 
die out pretty quickly as soon as ID type assignment to the id 
attribute has gotten traction.
leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 3 February 2014 22:48:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:37 UTC