- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:00:01 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, public-html-request@w3.org
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Sam Ruby wrote: > Ian Hickson wrote on 01/15/2009 02:43:47 PM: > > On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, James Graham wrote: > > > > > > The requirement that UAs place all HTML elements in the HTML > > > namespace does not make sense for all classes of UA. For html5lib I > > > plan to make it optional whether HTML elements are assigned to the > > > HTML namespace so that people using APIs that have a significant > > > namespace tax do not have to pay that tax in the common case. > > > > This wouldn't be non-conforming, since you don't expose a (W3C) DOM. > > The requirement is a black-box requirement that is only testable if > > the UA also supports Selectors (with namespaces), XPath, W3C DOM > > scripting, or such like. > > One of the possible backends of the existing html5lib parser *is* a W3C > DOM. Well for that one we presumably don't want to make it conforming to not have the namespace set, right? Since that would make code written to the API non-portable, which is exactly what we're trying to avoid. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 16 January 2009 02:00:40 UTC