- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 16:29:05 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, www-style@w3.org, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > > http://annevankesteren.nl/test/xml/xml-id/001.xml > http://annevankesteren.nl/test/xml/xml-id/002.xml > > -> These tests do not make much sense to me. They are not valid XHTML, but the tests themselves seem correct to me. (Behaviour in XHTML1 is arguably undefined but in the WHATWG proposals for HTML5 and its XML cousin the above tests would have well-defined behaviour that results in green backgrounds and no red.) > http://annevankesteren.nl/test/xml/xml-id/003.xml > http://annevankesteren.nl/test/xml/xml-id/004.xml > > -> the style sheets are invalid and background:lime is not > part of them, any implementation that passes the tests > is broken I beg to differ; the XML Stylesheet PIs in those tests seem quite correct to me. Could you elaborate? > http://annevankesteren.nl/test/xml/xml-id/005.html > http://annevankesteren.nl/test/xml/xml-id/006.html > http://annevankesteren.nl/test/xml/xml-id/a.html > > -> these are not HTML documents, any random behavior would be > conforming. While true for HTML4, the proposals for HTML5 would (after the DOCTYPE line was updated) define required behaviour for those documents. > [...] So I somewhat fail to see the relevance of these tests. Since in the real world Web browsers are required to implement interoperable error handling behaviour much as that that will be described for the HTML5 WHATWG proposals, I would say these tests are at worse theoretically premature, and certainly not irrelevant. > Could you propose text that should be added? There seem to be lots of > cross-technology and error handling issues here as xml:id does not > define its integration into deployed architecture, defining this for CSS > such that xml:id processing is consistent everywhere seems a bit > challenging. I guess you want similar statements regarding xml:lang > aswell? I agree with Bjoern here. It should be the responsibility of the defining language (xml:id in this case) to define the semantics of its attributes. CSS should only have to say "ID selectors match elements that have the specified IDs", without normatively stating how elements get IDs. The alternative would be for CSS to list every possible way of getting an ID onto an element (<html:* id="">, <svg:* id="">, xml:id="", DTDs, Schemas, the DOM3 Core methods, etc), and then have this list repeated every other place that needed to know about IDs (e.g. the definition of <html:label for="", the getElementById() method, the text/html fragment identifier definition, and so on and so forth). Quite obviously, keeping all these places up to date every time a new mechanism is introduced is not scalable. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 8 May 2005 16:29:23 UTC