34183 - The name attribute on the binding element should be renamed to id

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: XBL, defect, P3)

Description

[Sjoerd Visscher]

Dave, you said you wanted to fix this.
Are you still going to?

Comment 1

[David Hyatt]

Show me a precedent for the ID being used as a # in an URL.

Comment 2

[Sjoerd Visscher]

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/changes.html#a_changes

in XHTML 1.1 <a name=""> is no longer supported.

Comment 3

[David Hyatt]

Are they switching to using ID as a reference using # then?

Comment 4

[Sjoerd Visscher]

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#h-12.2.3
(Collision will make your question disappear)
html 4 already supports # to an ID

http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath#function-id
XML XPath does no longer support the # notation, and instead had the id() 
function.

http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath#unique-id
It points to a unique-id.

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#one-id-per-el
We can't have both name and id.

<bindings> now has 'id' and <binding> has 'name'. This is inconsistent (valid 
though)

Does XUL have a DTD somewhere, where 'name' is defined as an ID-type attribute?

I'm sorry. It will give you some extra work, but I think it's important.

Comment 5

[Sjoerd Visscher]

Hey, your question is not removed.
A bug in bugzilla...
(it should not report a collision)

Comment 6

[Sjoerd Visscher]

"In order to ensure that XHTML 1.0 documents are well-structured XML documents, 
XHTML 1.0 documents MUST use the id attribute when defining fragment 
identifiers, even on elements that historically have also had a name attribute."

I was wrong on xpath not supporting #.
It starts with # by default. ;-)

A bare name like #scrollbar is equivalent to #xpointer(id("scrollbar"))

Comment 7

[David Hyatt]

Got it.  Definitely seems like id is what we should be using.  Accepting for 
M15.

Comment 8

[Peter Trudelle]

Mass-moving most M15 bugs to M16

Comment 9

[David Hyatt]

done.