W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Element.create(): a proposal for more convenient element creation

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 11:17:36 +0200
Message-ID: <4E3FA9B0.7070009@gmx.de>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
On 2011-08-08 10:17, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Tab Atkins Jr.<jackalmage@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Dominic Cooney<dominicc@google.com>  wrote:
>>> Third, is the order of attributes significant for XML namespace
>>> declarations? eg does this:
>>> <x xmlns:foo="" foo:bar="" />
>>> mean the same thing as
>>> <x foo:bar="" xmlns:foo="" />
>>> ? If not, including namespaces in the attribute dictionary is fraught,
>>> because the iteration order of properties is undefined.
>>
>> The order is unimportant when setting them via markup, but important
>> when setting them via successive setAttribute calls.  I'd prefer that
>> the attribute bag be handled like markup attributes, where xmlns
>> attributes are handled "early" so that later attributes fall into the
>> correct namespace.
>
> Is there a reason to support namespaced attributes at all? They are
> extremely rare, especially on the web.
>
> Ideally I'd like to deprecate them, but I suspect that's not doable.
> But I see no reason to support them in new APIs.

Isn't basic support cheap to get? Just allow the Clark notation 
("{ns}local") for the attribute name.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 8 August 2011 09:18:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:47 GMT