- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 13:07:51 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, public-html@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Sun, 1 Jun 2008, Cameron McCormack wrote: >> Currently the spec says: >> >> If any of the elements in the serialization are in the null namespace, >> the default namespace in scope for those elements must be explicitly >> declared as the empty string. >> — http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/#innerhtml1 >> >> Is there any reason for this? > > If we didn't do this, round-tripping would break. For example this: > > > <foo xmlns="a:"><bar xmlns=""/></foo> > > foo.innerHTML = foo.innerHTML; > > ...would turn the DOM into the equivalent of: > > <a:foo xmlns:a="a:"><a:bar/></a:foo> I guess the question was whether this is a requirement that exceeds normal XML serializations requirements. For the example, yes, obviously the xmlns="" is required. The question is, is it required to add the xmlns="" in cases like <foo xmlns=""><bar xmlns=""/></foo> ? It wouldn't be needed for the sake of a correct XML serialization, but it would be *useful* to make copy & parse robust. BR, Julian
Received on Sunday, 1 June 2008 11:08:35 UTC