W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-id@w3.org > November 2004

Re: 7. Suggested test for space normalisation

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:19:47 +0000 (UTC)
To: Daniel Veillard <veillard@redhat.com>
Cc: public-xml-id@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0411182312390.12149@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 03:08:46PM +0000, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 02:06:41PM +0000, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Please ensure the test suite contains a test where the following:
> > > > 
> > > >    xml:id=" te  st "
> > > > 
> > > > ...is shown to cause its element to have ID "te st".
> > > 
> > > No, the result is not an NCName, this shoul;d not generate an ID.
> > 
> > That doesn't matter, see xml:id section 4 paragraph 10:
> > 
> > | The xml:id processor performs ID assignment on all xml:id attributes, 
> > | even those that do not satisfy the enumerated constraints.
> 
> I actually strongly disagree with this. I have seen enough XPointer/XSLT 
> and C14N horrors due to the "lax" behaviour of XPath-1.0 IDs ! When you 
> start doing digital signatures based on something which should have 
> raised an error but that the software didn't even care to report, you're 
> back to the random processing mess we tried to avoid with XML-1.0 :-(

Well, in the case of xml:id it isn't random at all, the processing is 
fully defined. So I don't think this causes any kinds of random processing 
mess. But it should definitely be tested. :-)

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 18 November 2004 23:19:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:53:49 UTC