On 11/10/2006, at 9:48 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
Does the xml:id specification allow it? If so, then it's allowed.
Is "xml:id" attribute forbidden on xbl elements?
It has nothing to do with XBL, and XBL doesn't disallow it (it just
says
that unexpected attributes are in error; if the UA is expecting the
attribute, then it's allowed).
The two specifications are completely orthogonal and there does not
seem to be any good reason for them to unnecessarily cross-reference
each other.
XBL is using XML namespaces and XML specifications. It mentioned
them.
Well, it has to mention them, since it is dependent on them. Their
rules
directly affect XBL. Without them, XBL would be drastically different.
xml:base is mentioned too.
Again, it has to be, because there are things that xml:base affects
in XBL
quite fundamentally.
Is "xml:id" attribute forbidden on xbl elements?
If not, why not using it, more than defining id?
Why use it? It's longer and makes DOM manipulation a lot harder.
All the
other languages that we'd expect authors to use with XBL use "id", not
"xml:id", and consistency is key in language design. Also, XBL
isn't the
kind of language you would use in an automated environment (which is
xml:id's main benefit). In conclusion, I don't see any advantage to
forcing authors to use "xml:id" instead of "id". As noted earlier, if
authors _want_ to use xml:id, they are of course allowed to do so.
The Working Group agrees with Ian's position here. Karl, could you
please respond to say whether or not you accept the resolution (that
the XBL specification doesn't need to specify anything in regards to
xml:id)?
Thanks,
Dean, on behalf of the WAF WG.
