Re: XML:ID extension spec proposal to HTML5 documents

On 03/02/2014 23:48 , Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> Robin Berjon, Mon, 03 Feb 2014 12:25:28 +0100:
>> 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.

Naturally not, this has always been left open as something that could be 
determined in more than one way. In this case XInclude relies on 
XPointer, which in turn supports externally-determined IDs:

     http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-xptr-framework-20030325/#term-xdi

Recognising @id as an ID in HTML context is an externally-determined ID. 
Recognising xml:id is also an externally-determined ID.

> 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.

I don't see that this needs to be in any specification. HTML already 
defines that @id is of type ID.

>> 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.

That is a bug to file against Prince XML.

> 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.

There are only two cases to consider. Either:

A) The processor supports HTML. In that case it recognises @id. Nothing 
further is required. This is the most desirable case since it matches a 
few content instances out there.

B) The processor does not support HTML, but you would like it to process 
it anyway. Just transform the content to use xml:id. Presumably if the 
processor does not support HTML the content is XML anyway, so nothing 
prevents you from applying a transformation to add xml:id. This does not 
require a specification, xml:id already does that.

So I really don't see why an ES is required here. It adds nothing that 
can't already be done.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon

Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2014 09:59:22 UTC