- From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:52:47 -0400
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
- Message-id: <87br5m37eo.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> was heard to say: | I haven't yet seen any technical reason for requiring xml:id support of | CSS implementations. It doesn't improve _CSS_ implementations at all. If vendor A has a CSS-for-XML product that supports xml:id and vendor B has a CSS-for-XML product that does not, then id selectors for well-formed XML documents are not interoperable across those products. I think that qualifies as an area where the CSS implementations could be improved. I had imagined that if the CSS spec said that it would be a good idea for CSS-for-XML products to support xml:id, then such interoperability problems could be avoided. CSS implementors tell me I am mistaken. Fine. Chris asked me to make a comment along these lines in response to an email exchange that we had on the public-xml-id comments list. I have done so. I gather that the CSS WG's consensus is to reject the comment. I have neither the energy nor the inclination to pursue this further so, if and when you do reject the comment, you may record, as a matter of process, that I am satisfied with that resolution. | Consider this: Would your working group put a requirement in the xml:id | spec saying that xml:id implementations that had rendering components were | required to support CSS? CSS makes explicit reference to XML IDs and consequently I think it should recommend support for xml:id. If xml:id made explicit reference to styling, I believe I'd be entirely comfortable saying that CSS should be supported. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc. NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
Received on Friday, 1 July 2005 14:56:27 UTC