- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:45:01 +0000 (UTC)
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Doesn't help in XML, but in XML DTDs aren't needed at all anyway,
> > > > so the point is largely moot.
> > >
> > > Maybe xml-editor at w3.org could be mailed to address this issue? If
> > > they accept it as a valid issue 'xs:ID' will eventually change,
> > > right?
> >
> > What exactly would the issue be? "Not enough characters are valid in
> > IDs"? I suppose someone could raise that, but I doubt that changing
> > XML syntax (this would require revving XML) will be very popular.
>
> It probably has to be changed, otherwise it might be rejected be the
> browser. Example[1]:
>
> <html id="[test]">
> <style>html{background:red}#[test]{background:lime}</style>
>
> Now I see this I'm not even sure if it is backwards compatible enough.
It's not a valid ID, sure, but that's ok -- it's not meant to be addressed
directly, it's in a template. Once the template is generated, it'll have a
valid ID value that you can use.
Note that the above example is invalid CSS -- you need to escape the []
characters, so it is:
#\[test\] { ... }
Also note that in at least one browser, getElementByID('[test]') returns
the right element in the example above (although for some reason #\[test\]
doesn't, I haven't tried to find out why).
I don't really see the problem.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2004 13:45:01 UTC