- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 23:25:16 +0200
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-xml-id@w3.org
On Friday, June 10, 2005, 11:11:34 PM, Bjoern wrote: BH> * Norman Walsh wrote: >>/ Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> was heard to say: >>| I can't tell if the intent is that the CSS specs get revised >>| to refer to xml:ID or if CSS implementations are to independently >>| pick up xml:ID support or what. The current spec is kinda waffly, >>| as far as I can tell... >>We believe that xml:id can be implemented in each of these cases and >>have taken (at least some) steps to demonstrate this fact. BH> This does not really answer Dan's question, or what I understood the BH> question to be. From BH> BH> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-CSS21-20040225/selector.html#id-selectors BH> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/CR-xml-id-20050208/ BH> could you please state whether adding text like BH> If an implementation supports CSS 2.1 and also supports BH> xml:id, then the xml:id attribute must be treated as an BH> ID for the purposes of CSS selector processing. I must say that this is exactly the sort of conditional conformance requirement that i would like to see (and the same for DOM and XPath). BH> to CSS 2.1 would in some way change conformance requirements for BH> implementations that support CSS 2.1 and also support xml:id? If BH> it does, could you please clarify why and why xml:id does not BH> contain a conformance requirement to this effect already? The same wording could usefully be added to, for example, CSS3 as well. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Friday, 10 June 2005 21:25:32 UTC