- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:15:08 -0500
- To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Cc: public-xml-id@w3.org
On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 13:21 -0400, Norman Walsh wrote: > / Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> was heard to say: > | This section "Impacts on Other Standards" is great... > | http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/CR-xml-id-20050208/#impact > | > | I see > | "Informed readers that C Impacts on Other Standards will be removed > | before xml:id becomes a recommendation" > | > | Hmm... well, it would be great to remove the "Impacts..." stuff > | because it's all taken care of, but looking at a draft > | implementation report... > | http://www.w3.org/XML/2005/01/xml-id-implementation.html > | > | ... I don't see, for example, a test corresponding to > | this ID selectors test... > | http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS3/Selectors/current/xhtml/tests/css3-modsel-15.xml > | > | Before removing the "Impacts..." section, please at least > | add a link from the implementation report to something > | from the CSS WG that says "yes... good question... we'll > | look into that." > > In an effort to address this comment, I was able to persuade the > authors of Amaya to demonstrate integration of xml:id processing. > > | I can't tell if the intent is that the CSS specs get revised > | to refer to xml:ID or if CSS implementations are to independently > | pick up xml:ID support or what. The current spec is kinda waffly, > | as far as I can tell... > | > | "Document languages may contain attributes that are declared to be of > | type ID." is pretty waffly > | http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-CSS2-19980512/selector.html#id-selectors > | > | I haven't looked into DOM, XPath, etc. as closely, but the concern > | applies. > > We believe that xml:id can be implemented in each of these cases and > have taken (at least some) steps to demonstrate this fact. > > Please let us know if this resolution is unsatisfactory to you. Hmm... it seems pretty important to keep "C Impacts on Other Standards" around until xml:id has been implemented in those other places. It's not clear to me whether you plan to keep it or not. If it stays in, I'm satisfied. If not, I need to think it over. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 10 June 2005 18:15:14 UTC