Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 04:25:27 +0200, Karl Dubost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* unexpected attributes are defined by the specification
if not, that will have to be defined, back to the comment on
expected context.
It seems pretty clear to me, as an implementor. Either the attribute
is supported (expected) or not (unexpected). If we support xml:id we
can expect it on every element and therefore it wouldn't be unexpected
and it would just work fine.
As an author, the question is: Can you expect your content using xml:id
to work in every XBL UA implementation ? I think the answer is no. My
reading is then, that XBL per se does not support xml:id. It does not
forbid its use either but to work interoperably one would have to define
another specification/profile XBL+XMLID. I don't mind.
My point is that the term 'expected' should be clarified. You seem to
think: A) it's expected by the implementation (which implements XBL and
other specifications), some think it's B) expected by the specification.
A implies B but the opposite is not true. Usually when reading
specifications you think of B. Please clarify.
Regards,
Cyril Concolato
--Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
