- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 18:30:41 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, www-style@w3.org, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > > The data:text/css,test{background:red}test#test{background:lime} is a > URI reference to the "test{background:lime}" fragment of the style > sheet. I sure hope there is no WHATWG proposal that changes that as that > would be incompatible with a broad range of URI and RFC 2397 > implementations. Um, data: URIs have no fragment identifiers. Why would "#" have any special meaning in data: URIs? (Having said that, data: URIs maybe _should_ have fragment identifiers, but that's another story.) > Well, they don't really help demonstrate interoperable implementation of > xml:id in CSS implementations; even if all tests were correct, they have > too poor coverage to serve as argument for requiring xml:id support in > CSS 2.1. Some of the tests might of course be useful for other purposes. Sure. In fact, the entire concept of "requiring xml:id support in CSS" is meaningless to me. UAs will support a technology or not, there's no point in a technology saying you must also support another technology, unless that technology is a pre-requisite for implementing the former. xml:id is completely tangential to CSS. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 8 May 2005 18:30:54 UTC