- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 03:53:38 +0200
- To: Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-www-style@farside.org.uk>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Thursday, August 25, 2005, 5:55:04 PM, Malcolm wrote: MR> On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 03:41:51PM +0200, Chris Lilley wrote: >> Removal of the wording on multiple ID attributes limits the suitability >> of CSS 2.1 to SVG and CDF. SVG and CDF WGs request that this >> functionality remain in the draft and be tested for in the test suite. MR> Firstly, the suggestion is to downgrade this note from normative to MR> informative, in order to permit CSS2.1 to exit CR, not to remove the MR> feature entirely. Which would then mean it could not be tested for conformance and would not feature in the test suite. >> In SVG 1.2, IDs could arise from any of these methods. Why should >> CSS selectors give different results to getElementById? Why does CSS 2.1 >> propose to tolerate this variability and inconsistency, whereby >> compliant implementations can fail on a simple #foo selector? MR> Secondly, I don't believe that anyone is suggestion that UAs that MR> support multiple IDs in other ways (via getElementById, for example) MR> should _not_ support multiple IDs via the CSS ID selector, it's just MR> that those UAs that don't support it in CSS don't support it MR> anywhere else either. The variability concerns me, and the fact that we might be stuck with that variability for a very long time. MR> But most importantly, shouldn't your comment really be directed at CSS MR> implementors rather than the CSSWG? If the CSS WG makes something informative and optional, the implementors will not implement it anyhow out of the goodness of their hearts, no. Well maybe in some cases they will - but if its required and its tested in the test suite they are much more likely to. MR> It makes no sense to request the MR> working group leave the feature in if there are no interoperable MR> implementations, as CSS 2.1 won't exit CR until that happens. Ah, I see what you are saying. Yes, implementors please realise that with CDI coming up, this feature becomes more important. MR> [Alternatively, if you're already aware of two interoperable MR> implementations of this functionality, you don't need to do MR> anything, as the feature will only be dropped if two implementations MR> cannot be demonstrated at the end of the CR stage.] It will be much easier to test whether two implementations are interoperable once there are tests on this feature to test them with. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2005 01:53:47 UTC