- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 19:26:53 +0000 (UTC)
- To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, David Woolley wrote: > > That depends on the physical implementation and is one of the penalties > of a policy that there is no invalid code (or as some would prefer to to > describe it, that all possible error recovery is uniquely specified), in > that it puts constraints on the physical implementation that would not > be needed for valid input. Uh. Actually, this is proving the exact opposite of what you want it to prove. CSS has never described how to handle this error case (the error case being the document having duplicate IDs). And so UAs did what they wanted. Which was to apply ID rules to any elements with that ID, duplicates be damned. You're now saying that the spec should have required that only one of the duplicate IDs should be honoured, and that the fact that this would be bad for performance is because the spec defined behaviour for all error conditions. ....Eh? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 6 January 2006 19:26:57 UTC