W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Highlighting issue of XML support in DOM 4

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel@glazman.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:30:03 +0100
Message-ID: <50FECC9B.1040401@glazman.org>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
CC: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Norm Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
On 22/01/13 17:32, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:
>> What definition of "widely used" would you like me to use?
>
> The one that was used for the DOM specification is whether or not
> applications depend on the feature. So whether it can be removed from
> user agents without affecting applications running on those user
> agents.
>
> Note that if there are compelling use cases for these features, per
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Jan/0087.html
> justification seems lacking, we can easily introduce them. We have
> removed everything from the DOM applications did not depend upon and
> started from there.

Honestly, removing xmlStandalone, xmlVersion and xmlEncoding is
a weird decision since all rendering engines keep internal non-
scriptable versions of them to be able to serialize all things XML.

http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/content/base/public/nsIDocument.h#1016

http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/114059

And if you need a use case, as I said earlier, an editor BlueGriffon
need access to the xml declaration to handle polyglot correctly.

</Daniel>
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2013 17:30:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 January 2013 17:30:33 GMT