- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 00:44:58 +0200
- To: veillard@redhat.com
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-xml-id@w3.org
* Daniel Veillard wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 11:11:34PM +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>> could you please state whether adding text like
>>
>> If an implementation supports CSS 2.1 and also supports
>> xml:id, then the xml:id attribute must be treated as an
>> ID for the purposes of CSS selector processing.
>>
>> to CSS 2.1 would in some way change conformance requirements for
>> implementations that support CSS 2.1 and also support xml:id? If
>> it does, could you please clarify why and why xml:id does not
>> contain a conformance requirement to this effect already?
>
>xml:id is basically a parser feature. I really don't see why it should
>add conformance statement for all the specs which may depend on XML.
I asked what happens if the text above is added to CSS 2.1, I did not
suggest to include such text in xml:id or CSS 2.1. I will draw it for
you:
Some people apparently think we currently have a)
+----------------------+ +-----------------------+
| xml:id ID Assignment | <huge gap here> | CSS Selector Matching |
+----------------------+ +-----------------------+
And want to fix it with b)
+----------------------+ +-----------------------+
| xml:id ID Assignment +-----------------+ CSS Selector Matching |
+----------------------| If an implement |-----------------------+
| ation supports |
| CSS 2.1 and als |
| o supports xml: |
| id, then ... |
+-----------------+
In my opinion it's more reasonable to have c)
+----------------------+-----------------------+
| xml:id ID Assignment | CSS Selector Matching |
+----------------------+-----------------------+
So I basically asked why we have a) and not c) at the moment.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Friday, 10 June 2005 22:44:10 UTC