- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 09:08:19 +0100
- To: "Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Cc: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>, www-tag@w3.org, "HTML WG" <w3c-html-wg@w3.org>, "www-html-editor@w3.org" <www-html-editor@w3.org>
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:18:32 +0100, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> wrote: >> Except that it is not. It adds quite an amount of attributes in the >> XHTML namespace. Besides using xml:id I could now use xhtml:id on any >> number of elements as well as xhtml:onkeypress as the subject of this >> thread suggests. These are quite substantial changes from previous >> versions of XHTML I'm sure not many implementors would've agreed to. > > These changes do *not* affect XHTML, and the text points that out quite > clearly, in bold type no less. That might be part of the problem. I'm not really sure I like this solution and I wonder how it scales given that you effectively have to check the element node namespaceURI for each element such an attribute could be validly applied to. Of course, that's not really defined in the draft. Other things are what should happen when people do use it on certain elements which the browser does not recognize? The assumption that documents are conforming to some schema seems to contradict with what actual implementations actually do (they follow the part about validation being optional; where validation actually only aplies to DTDs...). I'd like to see this being removed from this version of the XHTML Modularization (being 1.1). It does not seem to be a non-controversial change to make (and imho it isn't) when going from second WD to PR. Cheers, Anne PS: Let's do any potential follow-up e-mails on www-html-editor instead of www-tag... -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Friday, 3 March 2006 08:08:42 UTC