W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2009

Re: ISSUE-4: Versioning, namespace URIs and MIME types ISSUE-60

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:10:35 -0500
Message-ID: <499C5D2B.4090407@mit.edu>
To: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Robert J Burns wrote:
> I think you're taking this way off-topic.

I don't see why; the topic under discussion in this sub-thread seems to 
be behavior of nodes created via createElementNS insofar as it impacts 
the sharing of the same namespace by XHTML2, XHTML1, and (X)HTML5, no?

>> In particular, how should it handle this situation if it wants to have 
>> a basic library for doing various DOM manipulations so the various 
>> people doing the authoring don't have to reinvent the wheel all the 
>> time and if it has pages in both XHTML1 and XHTML2?
> 
> This is a topic for the XHTML2 WG not for us to address.

Fully agreed, for what it's worth.  In fact, that's my feeling on the 
entire namespace issue.....

> I would imagine  that an author targeting XHTML2 UAs would simply author content to an 
> XHTML2 UA.

In my use case the author of the script has no idea which UA is being 
targeted, though...

>> While true, it's possible to create an XHTML1-conformant image that 
>> serializes as text/html, while it's impossible to do so for an 
>> XHTML2-conformant image.
> 
> OK. Its also impossible to create an HTML5 serialized document that uses 
> new non-vlid elements that will parse correctly in IE6. That's the same 
> type of backwards compatibility problem and not really relevant to the 
> current topic.

You're talking about compatibility with implementations, whereas the 
topic on the table is compatibility of specifications with each other.

>> See above.  The naming conflict means that it's impossible to author 
>> conformant content in some situations.
> 
> No, I don't see that. Can you provide a specific example. What naming 
> conflict? We haven't identified a naming conflict. What could possibly 
> be making it impossible to author conformant content. That's a decision 
> an author makes to author conforming content or not to author conforming 
> content.

What part of my use case is unclear, exactly?

>> Again.  You have an HTMLImageElement, a URI, and some text that is 
>> alternate text for the image.  How do you put those together in a 
>> conforming way?
> 
> Conforming to which: HTML5 or XHTML2?

Whatever the document is using.  I have no way to detect that.  I can 
only create HTMLImageElements and set their DOM properties.  I'm being 
asked to create conformant markup.

This isn't a hypothetical situation; it's one in which any "widget" 
author (or author of something like fckeditor) would find himself.

> Boris you're again taking one thread and making it into a completely 
> different thread.

I don't think so.  This _is_ the thread about the fact that XHTML5 and 
XHTML2 are using the same namespace, right?

You really like to claim that others are making threads into other 
threads.  It would be nice if you bothered to read what they're saying 
instead....

> but the current topic is about sharing the same HTML namespace

Yes, precisely.  And I'm pointing out a specific use case where the 
sharing causes a problem.  How exactly is that "making it into a 
completely different thread"?  Maybe in your world....

> These conflicts would be name 
> collisions where the same name could represent multiple different 
> semantics and no context provided any means to discern those semantics.

Precisely.  That's what I gave an example of.

I think I'm done here.  Further commenting on this is a complete waste 
of my time...

-Boris
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2009 19:11:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:01 UTC