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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 11:38:12 +0200
Message-ID: <4ACB1004.40602@gmx.de>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com>, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> I agree that adding something else should be avoided. One way to avoid 
>> it would be to align namspaceURI/localName more between text/html and 
>> application/xhtml+xml.
> 
> namespaceURI and localName are aligned already, in the current HTML5 
> draft. What's different is the parser behavior. HTML parsing behavior 
> can't be identical to XML, within compatibility constraints. It's an 
> open question how much closer it could get. 

Yes.

>> I do not believe that anybody involved in this discussion had problems 
>> understanding how namespaces work. It was just confusion about a 
>> specific API.
> 
> I got the impression that at least some RDFa advocates thought it was 
> acceptable and desirable to base semantics on nodeName (or indeed how an 
> attribute was spelled in the source text) instead of on the 
> {namespaceURI, localName} ordered pair. And indeed, that is how a number 
> of RDFa implementations seem to work in practice. I'm not sure how much 
> of the seeming confusion in the discussion was genuine and how much was 
> the result of trying to justify a hacky solution.

Using nodeName + prefix mappings obtained separately instead of 
namespaceURI/localName is a workaround for environments where DOM L2 
either isn't there (IE), or doesn't work as desired (HTML5 for now). It 
has nothing to do with not understanding how namespaces work. Otherwise 
those implementations wouldn't pass tests, right?


> ...
>> But that's an API choice. A single function would have been sufficient 
>> by using the right syntax. (Again, Clark notation)
> 
> What advantage would Clark notation have over simply allowing URIs to be 
> event names?
> ...

I don't know the event API sufficiently to answer that. If a simple URI 
works as identification, then no, there's no point in making it a 
(URI,localName) tuple instead.

BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 09:38:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:50 GMT