- From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 14:09:20 +0200
Quoting Henri Sivonen <hsivonen at iki.fi>: > Also, I suggest requiring that elements must not have both id and > xml:id and requiring that xml:id must not occur in the HTML > serialization. (Again, from the document conformance point of view-- > not disputing requirements on browsers.) How could it occur in a HTML document? (Given that the browser in question is namespace aware.) I'm assuming here that we're not talking about adding stuff through the DOM given that you talk about serialization. > Rationale: > HTML doesn't have namespace processing of colonified names and the > xml:id spec is not designed for HTML. Allowing xml:id in HTML feels > intuitively wrong (perhaps even a bit evil :-). I agree. > If an element had both an id attribute and an xml:id attribute with > different values, the document would not be HTML-serializable, which > would be bad. Now I agree that's bad, but I think there is something to say for elements having multiple IDs. (Even though that's not valid for some definition of it.) > (Obviously, even with only one kind of ID attribute on an element, > in round tripping from XHTML to HTML to XHTML, the information about > whether the original attribute was id or xml:id is lost just like > the information about whether a table had a tbody is lost.) Interesting point. I think <tbody> should be required in XHTML personally to go against that. It just doesn't make sense the way it is now. > If an element was allowed to have an id attribute and an xml:id > attribute with the same value, the following constraint from xml:id > spec would be violated even for conforming docs: > "An xml:id processor should assure that the following constraint holds: > * The values of all attributes of type ?ID? (which includes > all xml:id attributes) within a document are unique." > ( http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-id/ ) > Assuming, of course, that the XHTML5 id can still be considered an ID > in the XML sense. It should be considered an ID in the XML sense for getElementByID and friends. > Finally, as the ultimate ID nitpicking, the spec should state that it > is naughty of authors to turn attributes other than id and xml:id > into IDs via the DTD. (Well, using a DTD at all is naughty. :-) But through DOM methods is ok? (I agree that DTDs are obsolete...) > Test case: http://hsivonen.iki.fi/test/wa10/adhoc/id.html Interesting testcase! > Opera (weekly build 3312; note that Opera recently changed its > behavior to match the others with id=' c '): Bah. I hope we can revert that... Do you have a similar test for xml:id? Opera does (did?) passes the following for example: http://annevankesteren.nl/test/xml/xml-id/008.xml Cheers, Anne -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Sunday, 2 April 2006 05:09:20 UTC