Jirka Kosek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2008-10-02 18:17 +0200: > Michael(tm) Smith wrote: > > > To me, that would suggest we make the [EMAIL PROTECTED] output a user > > option, > > but change the default to be to not to output it anymore. > > In principle I have nothing against going from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to @id. But > is > this effort worth it (there are many places where IDs are generated)? > What are the benefits of using @id instead [EMAIL PROTECTED] except > fractionally > shorter HTML code?
For one, to help people avoid the problems they run into with browsers when they serve documents as text/html that contain <a.../> instances For another, forward compatibility. It's quite possible that [EMAIL PROTECTED] will not be valid in HTML5 (there's no reason to keep it since UAs use @id as targets for fragment identifiers). --Mike -- Michael(tm) Smith http://people.w3.org/mike/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
