- From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 00:48:01 +0900
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote: > What makes xml:id so special that it needs to > be covered in detail, normatively? It's a simple question of interoperability and ease of use. You know as I do that IDness in non-HTML situations has been frequently problematic in browsers that do XML+CSS, and furthermore that even when it works well users have a hard time invoking the correct DTD mumbo-jumbo to get their IDs to match, not understanding why 'id' doesn't just work. Now we have xml:id which is a very neat addition to the XML toolset. It makes an important chunk of what end-users find scary with XML go away. An XML specification that simplifies XML, and you don't find that special? ;-) But that can only happen if it's reliably available. Which is why I think that CSS requiring xml:id for implementation that can apply CSS to XML (it shouldn't be required when HTML is considered) would do its share in helping interoperability. I understand the point made by several CSS WG members here about abstraction, but abstraction only goes so far. Interoperability happens at the concrete. I don't think that a small nudge in that direction will hurt CSS a bit. -- Robin Berjon Research Scientist Expway, http://expway.com/
Received on Monday, 9 May 2005 15:49:03 UTC