- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:48:28 +0100
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Ennals, Robert" <robert.ennals@intel.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak, Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:18:24 -0700: > I think Microdata and RDFa are good examples of standardized > extensions. However, as a browser engine developer, I would like the > ability to do vendor extensions (either experimental or not intended > for public Web content) without stepping on valuable shared > namespace. We have a decent way to do that with CSS properties using > the vendor prefix convention(*). It would be nice to have something > similar at the HTML level. It seems like Rob's proposals (either X or > Y) would provide ways to do that. Rob states in proposal X that ]]Any document that parses correctly in both XML and HTML is guaranteed to parse to the same DOM tree.[[ However, in CSS, if I use -webkit-border-radius:5px; then this is something that only Webkit browsers see. And the same seems to me to be the case w.r.t. vendor prefixes in HTML: If e.g. <div -webkit:attribute=""> is something that only Webkit understands, then it means that it is treated differently by Webkit compared to how other browsers treat it, probably because Webkit uses an internal namespaces which attach meaning to the -webkit prefix. And hence, can we justifiably say that Webkit sees the same DOM as the other browsers see? I am not against Rob's proposal because of *this*. I just think that we should realize that it is not a realistic requirement to says that all browsers should see the exact same DOM. And so, I think we should take into account, when defining distributed extensibility, that there must be some leeway in this regard. Both with regard to legacy browser support and with regard to cross-browser support. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 17 March 2010 03:49:11 UTC