- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 18:41:51 +0000 (UTC)
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, fantasai wrote: > > I'd like to suggest that ID attributes use a different syntax than [] to > mark repetition placeholders, one that fits with the XML restrictions on > IDs. The current syntax makes it impossible to define ID attributes as > "type ID" in any of the three major XML validation schemas, which > affects both the usefulness of authoring tools that rely on IDness (e.g. > for navigational tags or for catching duplication and referential > errors) and the integrity of other specs (such as the CSS 2.1 > specification) that rely on such definitions. It isn't a problem that schemas and DTDs would have problems here, since HTML5 conformance checkers have to do a lot more than any of the DTD and schema languages support anyway. I don't understand what you mean when you say authoring tools would have problems; why would they? I definitely don't understand what you mean by the integrity of other specs being at risk. > I don't care what the syntax is (I suggest :-replaceable-: for lack of > anything better), and it doesn't have to apply to other attributes where > [replaceable] is more natural. Ok, I allowed two other characters to be used in the place of [] as well. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 2 July 2005 11:41:51 UTC