- From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 02:55:59 -0500
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Dean Edwards <dean@edwards.name>, Dão Gottwald <dao@design-noir.de>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Sep 17, 2007, at 2:31 AM, Robert Burns wrote:
> This works for me in Safari 3.0 beta with uppercase: i.e.,
> "test('document.getElementsByTagName("HTML:FIGURE").length');"
>
> Even though we're using namespaces, the HTML rules still apply to
> capitalization.
I don't know what I was thinking there, it's got nothing to do with
case. I thought I had tested it with "html5:figure", but apparently
I hadn't.
But yes, the tagname would be treated as html5:figure in pre-HTML5
UAs (except for IE). That to me is an excellent example of graceful
degradation.
That would mean that HTML5 would define two names for the new figure
element: "figure" and "html5:figure" and also provide a canonical
prefix for use in text/html serializations. Like "xmlns" and "xml",
"html5" (or "html") would always point to the same namespace (even
without a binding/declaration). Converting to an XML serialization
would mean removing the htmll prefix from elements and altering CSS
and Javascript accordingly. Again, I'm not suggesting this graceful
degradation should outweigh all other concerns, but like any design
principle this example illustrates how it might be used when it does
outweigh other principles.
Also on the issue of scripting, I thought an important part of the
graceful degradation design principle was to avoid scripting (and
even CSS, though I think that's too restrictive). Once we add
scripting we can accomplish pretty much anything and call it graceful
degradation. In other words it empties the design principle of all of
its meaning. That may mean the only examples of graceful degradation
will have to draw on new features for HTML5 that do not involve new
element names (new attributes or other syntax changes would be useful).
Just to throw out an example: what would happen if we added the self-
closing syntax to text/html and actually made it meaningful.
Presumably this would degrade gracefully since existing content would
not end their opening element tags with a "/>". Just a thought for
another example.
Take care,
Rob
Received on Monday, 17 September 2007 07:56:16 UTC