Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > ... >>>> 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). >>> Prefix mapping obtained separately how? There's no obtaining of a >>> prefix mapping involved when you look at nodeName in order to treat >>> {null}xmlns:foo as {http://www.w3.org/2000/xmlns/}foo. >> >> We had this discussion before :-) >> >> It doesn't make a difference for the results of parsing an XHTML or >> HTML document. > > It does make a difference. XHTML documents will produce one attribute, > and HTML documents the other (as currently specified). That's why you have to use L1, or consider both case using L2, as far as I can tell. > ... >> It appears to me that whenever people complain over here about the >> complexity of XML namespaces, they really *mean* the complexity of how >> to deal with them in the DOM, in particular as long as you can't rely >> on consistent DOM Level 2 support. I agree that this is a pain, but >> that's a problem of that particular API, not XML namespaces in general. > > Can you name an API that makes them less painful to work with? I assume XOM is better, but haven't looked at it closely. In past projects I wrapped Java DOM with my own convenience code, dealing with DOM's problems. XSLT (not really an API though) makes things easy as well. > ... > None of those implementations attempt to use DOM Level 2 even when it is > present. If they did, they would fail all the text/html test cases. The > text/html test cases are written such that you fail if you use a > namespace-aware API instead of a namespace-unaware one. > ... But the reason for this is the incompatibility between HTML and XHTML in HTML5; something this very discussion is about. BR, JulianReceived on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 10:33:51 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 24 March 2011 00:22:59 GMT