- From: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:12:12 -0600
- To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
REPEAT- This should have been under ISSUE-60 ------------------------- Hi Ian, On Feb 17, 2009, at 3:31 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Robert J Burns wrote: >> On Feb 16, 2009, at 9:35 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: >>> >>> Given the following function in a script: >>> >>> function test(imp) { >>> // imp is a DOMImplementation object >>> var doc = imp.createDocument(null, null, null); >>> var e = doc.createElementNS('http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml', >>> 'img'); >>> return e; >>> } >>> >>> ...browsers are required, for compatibility with legacy content, >>> XHTML1, >>> DOM2 HTML, and DOM2 Core, to return an element that, when inserted >>> into a >>> document, displays either an image as indicated by its "src" >>> attribute, or >>> text as indicated by its "alt" attribute. >> >> But that element has neither value set. I'm not following your >> example. > > The element has to be an element that acts as above for any subsequent > value set, changed, or removed for those attributes. So the script is a total distraction. You're simply saying that an 'img' element has to behave in a way that conforms to the implementation conformance criteria of HTML5. OK, fine we all knew that. For XHTML2 it would have to behave in a way conformant to the XHTML2 implementation criteria. So what I have repeatedly said and no one has yet addressed is that we need to find name collisions that would prevent that. The fact that both HTML5 and XHTML2 have an element named 'img' is not a name collision. The fact that HTML5 has an attribute called 'alt' and XHTML2 does not is also not a name collision. >> Could you say something about what XHTML2 would do with the above >> script? > > It would create an element that rendered its children instead of its > alt > attribute in the absense of a src attribute. Which if it had child elements would probably meet the expectation of the author (since the author must be authoring to XHTML2 document conformance and not HTML5 conformance). This is very simple Ian. We simply need to identify some name collision and then we can add it to the list of issues to take up with the XHTML2 WG. So far we have a list of zero name collisions. Yet we keep continuing the discussion as if we have a long and growing list of name collisions. With a list of zero name collisions this does look like petty and irritating squabbling as Philip TAYLOR suggested.[1] So I would recommend that this thread remain focussed on finding actual problems with sharing the namespace rather than writing completely irrelevant scripts that demonstrate absolutely nothing. Take care, Rob [1]: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0382.html>
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2009 19:12:52 UTC