This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Some ad-blockers work by imposing CSS rules to filter out elements using "ad" as an ID, directory name, or anchor. Please consider a different name for the ID and anchor for the Attribute Declaration section.
Thank you for pointing out that some ad blockers filter out elements with the id "ad". Ouch. Has this been an issue for you, or for readers you have encountered? Or is this in some sense a possible problem rather than a current issue for you? (I'm trying to weigh the problem of the ad blockers against the likelihood that if we change the ID of a component we will unintentionally break something in the spec.)
I was a victim of the filtering, and it took me a while to figure out why part of the document was missing. I got the CSS from http://www.floppymoose.com/. The filter is a bit coarse, and I don't know how commonly used it is, but it is the top hit at Google for "safari ad blocker" and similar searches.
The WG agreed that this may be nice to have. Editorial at the discretion of the editors.
In August and September 2009 the XML Schema working group performed triage on the remaining open issues in a WBS poll [1], whose results are summarized at [2] and accepted formally at [3]. In the course of that triage we decided, with some regret, to close this issue without further action. We just aren't going to get this done in the time available to us, and we do not believe the issue is critical enough to warrant delaying the spec to address it. The ID in question is one in a system of short codes for different kinds of components which are used pervasively in the editorial production system; as the current maintainer of that system I have no confidence whatsoever in my ability to find all the places where the system exploits knowledge of the code 'ad', or knowledge of the fact that element and attribute declarations each have a two-letter code, etc. So the change cannot be made without careful checking which would take more time than we now have available. Xan, as the originator, I ask that you consider whether you are willing to live with this disposition or wish to push back against it. If you can live with it, please indicate so by closing the bug report; if you can't, please reopen it. As usual, if we don't hear from you in the next two weeks we will assume you are willing, however reluctantly, to accept this disposition. [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/19482/200908CRissues/ [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-wg/2009Sep/0005.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2009Sep/att-0005/2009-09-11telcon.html#item04 (all links member-only)