Le 2007-06-21 à 12:35, Phil Mocek a écrit :
Can anyone confirm that having the HTML fragment identifier
formatted as Thomas proposes is valid? Both this [W3C design
issue paper][1] and [Wikipedia article][2] suggest otherwise, but
I'm not sufficiently familiar with this to say for certain.
[1]: <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Fragment.html>
[2]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragment_identifier>
The content for the id attribute for HTML 4 must obey [this rule][3]:
ID and NAME tokens must begin with a letter ([A-Za-z]) and may be
followed by any number of letters, digits ([0-9]), hyphens ("-"),
underscores ("_"), colons (":"), and periods (".").
[3]: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-name
For XML, and by extension XHTML, it must obey the Name construct,
which is defined as such [in the spec][4]:
NameChar ::= Letter | Digit | '.' | '-' | '_' | ':' |
CombiningChar | Extender
Name ::= (Letter | '_' | ':') (NameChar)*
[4]: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-Name
Basically, HTML and XML both disallow digits as the first character
of the id attribute. That's why the version number is preceded with a
"v" in my profile page.
While invalid as an XML or HTML id value, a fragment identifier
starting with a digit is still perfectly correct in a URL. Here's the
definition of URL fragment according to [RFC 3986][5]:
fragment = *( pchar / "/" / "?" )
pchar = unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims / ":" / "@"
unreserved = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~"
pct-encoded = "%" HEXDIG HEXDIG
sub-delims = "!" / "$" / "&" / "'" / "(" / ")"
/ "*" / "+" / "," / ";" / "="
[5]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986
Michel Fortin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.michelf.com/
_______________________________________________
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
