kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> "Max Bowsher" <maxb@ukf.net> writes:
>>> I understand the desire for valid names, but how serious a problem
>>> were these causing? By removing them, we're potentially breaking
>>> links. It might be better to leave the old names for compatibility,
>>> while still adding the new names (so that links created from now on
>>> don't exacerbate the problem).
>>
>> The old names are absolutely invalid IDs in an XML document - they
>> actually cause validation to fail.
>>
>> There is no way to retain the old IDs without rendering the page invalid.
>
> True, but a bit orthogonal to my question :-).
>
> I understand that those old IDs were invalid, meaning that they cause
> validation to fail. However, people do not browse the web through
> validators, but through browsers. So my question is, is validation
> important enough to be worth breaking links? I'm not so much worried
> about the svn_1.2_releasenotes.html change as the faq.html change,
> since the FAQ is a frequently-cited document that had had that ID for
> a while (I believe).
It just occurred to me to wonder why the validator suddenly began
complaining... before, the fragments were marked up with name attributes,
but by making them id attributes, they became subject to XML name
restrictions - so I added in an <a name=""> tag to hold the compatibility
link.
Max.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Jun 5 01:14:53 2005