- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 13:01:23 -0800
- To: "Paul Grosso" <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Norman Walsh" <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, public-xml-id@w3.org
On Thursday, February 3, 2005, 7:05:04 AM, Paul wrote: >> From: public-xml-id-request@w3.org On Behalf Of Chris Lilley >> Sent: Wednesday, 02 February, 2005 22:38 >> To: Ian Hickson >> Cc: Norman Walsh; public-xml-id@w3.org >> Subject: Re: 4. ID assignment and the empty string >> >> >> On Wednesday, February 2, 2005, 3:45:44 PM, Ian wrote: >> >> >> IH> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Norman Walsh wrote: >> >> >> >> 1. Rather than speaking of "ID assignment", the specification now >> >> speaks of "ID type assignment": [...] >> >> >> >> 2. We added a note to make it clear that application >> behavior (e.g., >> >> whether or not the getElementById() function actually accepts the >> >> empty string as a legitimate value) is beyond the scope of this >> >> specification. [...] >> >> >> >> Please let us know if this change satisfies your comment. (Our CR >> >> decision call is tomorrow morning, so a prompt reply would be most >> >> appreciated.) >> >> IH> This change does satisfy my concern, thanks! >> >> Leaving something deliberately unspecified is one way to proceed, but >> not a way that I like. PG> While I appreciate that, the xml:id spec is not trying PG> to solve all the interoperability problems with all PG> XML related tools. No one has given the XML Core WG PG> charter to decide how, say, browsers should work. My focus here was W3C specifications, not nebulous 'browsers'. I was specifically thinking of id in Xpath 1.0, XPath 2.0, CSS selectors, and the XML DOM. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Thursday, 3 February 2005 21:01:23 UTC