Cain, Mark wrote: > Forgive me, but yes (I my opinion) you did. Is this forum for a ruby > framework that is exclusively for IE? And doesn't ALL the tests that > are written and run, run in IE? This thread was started by a question > about how to handle duplicate element ID's on a page--a behavior allowed > in IE--and that is done by using the 1 based object index. Wouldn't > that make almost everything--at the very least indirectly--about IE? > > And for the record IE does not rely on the ID property but the index > (ordinal position) to guarantee object uniqueness. That would make it > by design. Here is the quote right from MS DHTML reference for the > element property ID: > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/workshop/author/dhtml > /reference/dhtml_reference_entry.asp > "The id should be unique throughout the scope of the current > document. If a document contains more than one object with the > same identifier, the objects are exposed as a collection that can > be referenced only in ordinal position." > This issue is certainly on-topic for the wtr-general list. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
I just didn't see that your IE complaints were related to the duplicate ID bug. IE is just rendering HTML that is not W3C conformant. There has been a long tradition of browsers accepting and trying their best to render invalid HTML, whether it be missing end tags or duplicate ID's. IE did not start this tradition and i don't think it is reasonable to expect them to stop. I see now that you in fact have a different view and did intend to blame IE for this issue. It's actually not an issue i really care all that much about. But i guess that i do like to see the blame for bugs rest where it is due. Bret _______________________________________________ Wtr-general mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/wtr-general
