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

Re: ISSUE-41/ACTION-97 decentralized-extensibility

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 11:53:01 -0700
Cc: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Message-id: <20F1295F-B2B3-4A4D-9782-2FCB4E1910A5@apple.com>
To: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>

On Oct 1, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Adrian Bateman wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 30, 2009 4:30 PM, Philip Taylor wrote:
>> Looking at just the base proposal for now:
>>
>>> HTML Markup:
>>>     <my:calendar xmlns:my="com.mycompany">
>>>
>>> DOM:
>>>     Element {
>>>          localName    = "calendar",
>>>          nodeName     = "my:calendar",
>>>          prefix       = "my",
>>>          namespaceURI = "com.mycompany"
>>>     }
>
>> The proposal therefore seems to be completely different to every  
>> current
>> text/html browser, as far as the DOM goes. Am I missing something  
>> here?
>
> Currently, IE doesn't support the DOM APIs related to namespaces.  
> Currently the other browsers support these APIs but don't have a  
> mapping to the HTML serialisation (and don't process the xmlns in  
> the way IE does). This proposal aims to bring the two together. It's  
> true that we're not aware of a current implementation that does both.

Besides the different DOM, IE doesn't seem to do any namespace  
processing of attributes. Thus, the following paragraph in the  
proposal seems incomplete:

"The proposal as stated closely matches behavior that Internet  
Explorer has had for a number of releases, reducing compatibility  
concerns. While true that Internet Explorer does not currently allow  
prefixes to be defined anywhere other than the root element in the  
document, lifting this restriction is not believed to present any  
significant compatibility risk."

There seem to be a lot of differences besides lifting the root element  
restriction.

It would be good to document what IE actually does, so we can clearly  
understand the differences and assess the compatibility impact.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Thursday, 1 October 2009 18:53:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:49 GMT