Re: ISSUE-41/ACTION-97 decentralized-extensibility

A few comments...

On Oct 6, 2009, at 1:33 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> I agree that adding something else should be avoided. One way to  
> avoid it would be to align namspaceURI/localName more between text/ 
> html and application/xhtml+xml.

namespaceURI and localName are aligned already, in the current HTML5  
draft. What's different is the parser behavior. HTML parsing behavior  
can't be identical to XML, within compatibility constraints. It's an  
open question how much closer it could get.

>> However, I think it's a strong indication that if we, who work with
>> these specs on almost a daily basis, have trouble understanding, then
>> the system is too complicated.
> I do not believe that anybody involved in this discussion had  
> problems understanding how namespaces work. It was just confusion  
> about a specific API.

I got the impression that at least some RDFa advocates thought it was  
acceptable and desirable to base semantics on nodeName (or indeed how  
an attribute was spelled in the source text) instead of on the  
{namespaceURI, localName} ordered pair. And indeed, that is how a  
number of RDFa implementations seem to work in practice. I'm not sure  
how much of the seeming confusion in the discussion was genuine and  
how much was the result of trying to justify a hacky solution.

>>>> Similarly the DOM Level 3 Events spec recently decided to drop  
>>>> the use
>>>> of name+namespace tuple inspired by XML Namespaces, and instead  
>>>> chose
>>>> to use a single string to identify Events.
>>> This might be a self-fulfilling prophecy; it's not surprising  
>>> because the
>>> people involved in writing this spec did not like namespaces in  
>>> the first
>>> place.
>> It's not a matter of like. Name+namespace tuples simply didn't solve
>> any real problems, and just added of complexity. For example every
>> type of event ended up having two initialization functions instead of
>> one. I personally argued for keeping namespaces in DOM Events many
> But that's an API choice. A single function would have been  
> sufficient by using the right syntax. (Again, Clark notation)

What advantage would Clark notation have over simply allowing URIs to  
be event names?


Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 09:02:11 UTC