- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 18:30:41 +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:
>
> The data:text/css,test{background:red}test#test{background:lime} is a
> URI reference to the "test{background:lime}" fragment of the style
> sheet. I sure hope there is no WHATWG proposal that changes that as that
> would be incompatible with a broad range of URI and RFC 2397
> implementations.
Um, data: URIs have no fragment identifiers. Why would "#" have any
special meaning in data: URIs? (Having said that, data: URIs maybe
_should_ have fragment identifiers, but that's another story.)
> Well, they don't really help demonstrate interoperable implementation of
> xml:id in CSS implementations; even if all tests were correct, they have
> too poor coverage to serve as argument for requiring xml:id support in
> CSS 2.1. Some of the tests might of course be useful for other purposes.
Sure. In fact, the entire concept of "requiring xml:id support in CSS" is
meaningless to me. UAs will support a technology or not, there's no point
in a technology saying you must also support another technology, unless
that technology is a pre-requisite for implementing the former.
xml:id is completely tangential to CSS.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 8 May 2005 18:30:55 UTC