- From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:16:53 +0000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Quoting Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>:
> James Graham wrote:
>> Quoting Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com>:
>>
>>> Examples:
>>> 1. Implicit namespaces for HTML, SVG, and MathML are generated by
>>> the current HTML 5 parsing algorithm.
>>
>> That's a bug not a feature. Or rather it is an undesirable
>> consequence of the way that SVG and MathML have been grandfathered
>> into the language. I expect authors to be pretty confused that they
>> can write <svg><circle></circle></svg> (plus some attributes) and
>> see a circle but doing
>>
>> var svg = document.createElement("svg");
>> var circle = document.createElement("circle")
>> //set some attributes for radius and position here
>> svg.appendChild(circle)
>> document.body.appendChild(circle)
>>
>> won't have the same effect
>
> Sounds like
>
> <svg><circle></circle></svg>
>
> should then not create elements in the SVG namespace, and xmlns:* would
> be required? Sounds good to me.
That isn't what I intended to suggest. I think the situation with SVG
and MathML in the current spec is the best that can be made of a bad
job -- at least I have no concrete suggestions for improving the
situation -- and certainly think that it is better than a situation
that requires both simple authoring *and* DOM manipulation to use
explicit namespaces. The ideal solution would not involve namespaces
at all. However given the desire to reuse SVG and MathML, and the XML
legacy of those technologies, this ideal seems to be unattainable.
> Do you also consider HTML elements being placed into a namespace a bug?
No.
Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2009 20:17:31 UTC