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

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> ...
>>>> Using nodeName + prefix mappings obtained separately instead of 
>>>> namespaceURI/localName is a workaround for environments where DOM L2 
>>>> either isn't there (IE), or doesn't work as desired (HTML5 for now).
>>> Prefix mapping obtained separately how? There's no obtaining of a 
>>> prefix mapping involved when you look at nodeName in order to treat 
>>> {null}xmlns:foo as {}foo.
>> We had this discussion before :-)
>> It doesn't make a difference for the results of parsing an XHTML or 
>> HTML document.
> It does make a difference. XHTML documents will produce one attribute, 
> and HTML documents the other (as currently specified).

That's why you have to use L1, or consider both case using L2, as far as 
I can tell.

> ...
>> It appears to me that whenever people complain over here about the 
>> complexity of XML namespaces, they really *mean* the complexity of how 
>> to deal with them in the DOM, in particular as long as you can't rely 
>> on consistent DOM Level 2 support. I agree that this is a pain, but 
>> that's a problem of that particular API, not XML namespaces in general.
> Can you name an API that makes them less painful to work with?

I assume XOM is better, but haven't looked at it closely. In past 
projects I wrapped Java DOM with my own convenience code, dealing with 
DOM's problems.

XSLT (not really an API though) makes things easy as well.

> ...
> None of those implementations attempt to use DOM Level 2 even when it is 
> present. If they did, they would fail all the text/html test cases. The 
> text/html test cases are written such that you fail if you use a 
> namespace-aware API instead of a namespace-unaware one.
> ...

But the reason for this is the incompatibility between HTML and XHTML in 
HTML5; something this very discussion is about.

BR, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 10:33:51 UTC