Re: [CSS21] Please endorse xml:id

/ 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