Re: ISSUE-4: Versioning, namespace URIs and MIME types

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