php processing name vs. id field
in [General]
|
Prev: Past discussion
Next: Integers
From: tedd on 2 Jul 2010 11:22 At 10:53 AM -0400 7/2/10, Bob McConnell wrote: >This discussion began when I pointed out that the name attribute is >deprecated in XHTML. This was later confirmed when someone pointed to >the actual specification at <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/>, however >there may be some confusion about the scope of the change. The >applicable section is shown below. Apparently HTML 5 is planning to take >a different path. Of course, nobody knows that for sure since the spec >is far from complete and will likely be undergoing major changes for >several more years. > >Bob McConnell What XHTML does is limited to XHTML. Simply put, HTML is the glue that holds the web-works together. The attributes that HTML uses/approves is what concerns other languages. I am sure that the "powers that be" will consider the affects of changing established and well entrenched attributes (remember that "name" was used as an attribute before "id"). As such, I seriously doubt that "name" will fall by the wayside any time soon. Cheers, tedd -- ------- http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
From: "Bob McConnell" on 2 Jul 2010 11:52 From: tedd > At 10:53 AM -0400 7/2/10, Bob McConnell wrote: > >This discussion began when I pointed out that the name attribute is > >deprecated in XHTML. This was later confirmed when someone pointed to > >the actual specification at <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/>, however > >there may be some confusion about the scope of the change. The > >applicable section is shown below. Apparently HTML 5 is planning to take > >a different path. Of course, nobody knows that for sure since the spec > >is far from complete and will likely be undergoing major changes for > >several more years. > > What XHTML does is limited to XHTML. > > Simply put, HTML is the glue that holds the web-works together. The > attributes that HTML uses/approves is what concerns other languages. > I am sure that the "powers that be" will consider the affects of > changing established and well entrenched attributes (remember that > "name" was used as an attribute before "id"). As such, I seriously > doubt that "name" will fall by the wayside any time soon. Yes, the wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many to chose from. My head is hurting even trying to consider all of this. We have settled on XHTML for all corporate pages, since it is final, fixed and well supported. It can also be validated easily using the HTML Validator plug-in for Firefox, among others. A significant portion of my work over the past year has been improving conformance by using that plug-in. The only other thing I plan to think about is how soon I should retire. I'll be eligible for social security in less than six months, and if the stock market is kind to my 401K, I should be ready by then. Since there isn't anything left here that allows me to use my primary skills (Assembly language and hardware device drivers) I am pretty much treading water until I leave. I think my managers have put me on these web pages simply to keep me occupied until then. It's obvious I don't understand the underlying technology very well. For those in the USofA, have a great Fourth of July holiday. Bob McConnell
From: Kirk.Johnson on 2 Jul 2010 12:28 "Bob McConnell" <rvm(a)CBORD.com> wrote on 07/02/2010 08:53:30 AM: > > Arguments against using/dismissing the "name" attribute in tags is > > simply nonsense. > > This discussion began when I pointed out that the name attribute is > deprecated in XHTML. This was later confirmed when someone pointed to > the actual specification at <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/>, however > there may be some confusion about the scope of the change. The > applicable section is shown below. Apparently HTML 5 is planning to take > a different path. Of course, nobody knows that for sure since the spec > is far from complete and will likely be undergoing major changes for > several more years. > > Bob McConnell > > -----8<------------------------------------------------ > 4.10. The elements with 'id' and 'name' attributes > > HTML 4 defined the name attribute for the elements a, applet, form, > frame, iframe, img, and map. HTML 4 also introduced the id attribute. > Both of these attributes are designed to be used as fragment > identifiers. > > In XML, fragment identifiers are of type ID, and there can only be a > single attribute of type ID per element. Therefore, in XHTML 1.0 the id > attribute is defined to be of type ID. 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 on the elements > listed above. See the HTML Compatibility Guidelines for information on > ensuring such anchors are backward compatible when serving XHTML > documents as media type text/html. > > Note that in XHTML 1.0, the name attribute of these elements is formally > deprecated, and will be removed in a subsequent version of XHTML. At the risk of injecting a little light into this discussion ;) note the list of elements in the excerpt Bob provided: a, applet, form, frame, iframe, img, and map. Almost all replies to date have referred to the name attribute of the *form elements*: input, select, and textarea. Two different sets of elements. As far as I am concerned, the "authorities" are free to remove the name attribute from the first set. I think it is safe to say that the name attribute will not be removed from the *form elements* anytime soon. For all with a holiday coming up this weekend, have a good one! Kirk
From: Adam Richardson on 2 Jul 2010 13:52 On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 12:28 PM, <Kirk.Johnson(a)zootweb.com> wrote: > "Bob McConnell" <rvm(a)CBORD.com> wrote on 07/02/2010 08:53:30 AM: > > > > Arguments against using/dismissing the "name" attribute in tags is > > > simply nonsense. > > > > This discussion began when I pointed out that the name attribute is > > deprecated in XHTML. This was later confirmed when someone pointed to > > the actual specification at <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/>, however > > there may be some confusion about the scope of the change. The > > applicable section is shown below. Apparently HTML 5 is planning to take > > a different path. Of course, nobody knows that for sure since the spec > > is far from complete and will likely be undergoing major changes for > > several more years. > > > > Bob McConnell > > > > -----8<------------------------------------------------ > > 4.10. The elements with 'id' and 'name' attributes > > > > HTML 4 defined the name attribute for the elements a, applet, form, > > frame, iframe, img, and map. HTML 4 also introduced the id attribute. > > Both of these attributes are designed to be used as fragment > > identifiers. > > > > In XML, fragment identifiers are of type ID, and there can only be a > > single attribute of type ID per element. Therefore, in XHTML 1.0 the id > > attribute is defined to be of type ID. 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 on the elements > > listed above. See the HTML Compatibility Guidelines for information on > > ensuring such anchors are backward compatible when serving XHTML > > documents as media type text/html. > > > > Note that in XHTML 1.0, the name attribute of these elements is formally > > deprecated, and will be removed in a subsequent version of XHTML. > > At the risk of injecting a little light into this discussion ;) note the > list of elements in the excerpt Bob provided: a, applet, form, frame, > iframe, img, and map. Almost all replies to date have referred to the name > attribute of the *form elements*: input, select, and textarea. Two > different sets of elements. > > As far as I am concerned, the "authorities" are free to remove the name > attribute from the first set. I think it is safe to say that the name > attribute will not be removed from the *form elements* anytime soon. > > For all with a holiday coming up this weekend, have a good one! > > Kirk Hi Kirk, You beat me to it, that's exactly the issue at hand in this debate. Name IS deprecated (both in newer versions of HTML and XHTML) for those particular elements: http://derickrethans.nl/html-name-attribute-deprecated.html As Derrick points out on that page, "always read the specs carefully" ;) Adam -- Nephtali: PHP web framework that functions beautifully http://nephtaliproject.com
From: Peter Lind on 2 Jul 2010 13:59
On 2 July 2010 19:52, Adam Richardson <simpleshot(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 12:28 PM, <Kirk.Johnson(a)zootweb.com> wrote: > >> "Bob McConnell" <rvm(a)CBORD.com> wrote on 07/02/2010 08:53:30 AM: >> >> > > Arguments against using/dismissing the "name" attribute in tags is >> > > simply nonsense. >> > >> > This discussion began when I pointed out that the name attribute is >> > deprecated in XHTML. This was later confirmed when someone pointed to >> > the actual specification at <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/>, however >> > there may be some confusion about the scope of the change. The >> > applicable section is shown below. Apparently HTML 5 is planning to take >> > a different path. Of course, nobody knows that for sure since the spec >> > is far from complete and will likely be undergoing major changes for >> > several more years. >> > >> > Bob McConnell >> > >> > -----8<------------------------------------------------ >> > 4.10. The elements with 'id' and 'name' attributes >> > >> > HTML 4 defined the name attribute for the elements a, applet, form, >> > frame, iframe, img, and map. HTML 4 also introduced the id attribute. >> > Both of these attributes are designed to be used as fragment >> > identifiers. >> > >> > In XML, fragment identifiers are of type ID, and there can only be a >> > single attribute of type ID per element. Therefore, in XHTML 1.0 the id >> > attribute is defined to be of type ID. 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 on the elements >> > listed above. See the HTML Compatibility Guidelines for information on >> > ensuring such anchors are backward compatible when serving XHTML >> > documents as media type text/html. >> > >> > Note that in XHTML 1.0, the name attribute of these elements is formally >> > deprecated, and will be removed in a subsequent version of XHTML. >> >> At the risk of injecting a little light into this discussion ;) note the >> list of elements in the excerpt Bob provided: a, applet, form, frame, >> iframe, img, and map. Almost all replies to date have referred to the name >> attribute of the *form elements*: input, select, and textarea. Two >> different sets of elements. >> >> As far as I am concerned, the "authorities" are free to remove the name >> attribute from the first set. I think it is safe to say that the name >> attribute will not be removed from the *form elements* anytime soon. >> >> For all with a holiday coming up this weekend, have a good one! >> >> Kirk > > > Hi Kirk, > > You beat me to it, that's exactly the issue at hand in this debate. Â Name IS > deprecated (both in newer versions of HTML and XHTML) for those particular > elements: > http://derickrethans.nl/html-name-attribute-deprecated.html > > As Derrick points out on that page, "always read the specs carefully" ;) > That was pointed out more than a day ago ... -- <hype> WWW: http://plphp.dk / http://plind.dk LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/plind BeWelcome/Couchsurfing: Fake51 Twitter: http://twitter.com/kafe15 </hype> |