- From: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 17:51:57 +0900 (JST)
- To: mccarthy36@earthlink.net
- Cc: www-html@w3.org, www-html-editor@w3.org
Jesse McCarthy <mccarthy36@earthlink.net> wrote: > The following text from 5.21 of Modularization of XHTML is confusing: > > QUOTE [ > > The name attribute was used historically to identify certain elements within > HTML documents. While the name attribute has been supplanted by the id > attribute in all of these elements... > > ] If you only look at this part out of context, it could be confusing, but if you read it in context, it is reasonably clear that this module only talks about the name attribute on certain elements listed in section 5.21. Other elements, not only form control elements but also the meta element, for example, have the name attribute but it has nothing to do with this module. > Furthermore, please clarify a similar vaguery in C.8 of the XHTML 1.0 spec: > > QUOTE [ > > ..the type of the name attribute has been changed to NMTOKEN. > > > ] Again, please read it in context. The title of C.8 says "Fragment Identifiers". The name attribute of form control elements has nothing to do with the fragment identifier. The last paragraph of C.8 explicitly lists those elements concerned. > Is the declaration of the 'name' attribute as type CDATA correct for elements > such as input, select, textarea, etc.? Yes. > Is it expected that the 'name' attribute will persist for those element types? Yes, in a sense that the Basic Forms and Forms modules will be left as is and there will be no new version of them. XForms will replace them in future version of XHTML. > If so, is it expected that the type will persist as CDATA (thereby allowing > the characters "[" and "]" among others to appear in the attribute value, > thereby allowing usage of the aforementioned PHP syntax among other things)? Yes. Regards, -- Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org W3C - World Wide Web Consortium
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2001 03:52:04 UTC