- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 07:34:26 +0100
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, 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 22:15:16 -0700: > On Mar 16, 2010, at 8:48 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> 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.[[ > > I think this statement is true, even with Robert's proposal. .... > All browsers seeing the same DOM is different from XML and HTML > parsing producing the same DOM. This is not what I had in mind. I only had text/html in mind. > The former is essential, and separate > from any differences in processing that DOM. The latter will not be > achieved by Robert's proposal and is probably not practical for > various edge case reasons. Vendor prefixes would then be an edge case? What I meant was that if an attribute prefix lives in a namespaces according to one user agent, but not according to another (which could be a possibility in text/html, even if it may not be possible in XHTML), then a prefixed attribute "leave" on the DOM tree could be targeted, via CSS, like this, [*|attribute]{} in the UA that sees it as a namespace. And like this, [namespace\:attribute]{} in an UA which doesn't see the namespace. May be this difference is what you refer to as the "produced DOM"? And I argue that one cannot avoid this difference, when it comes to vendor prefixes. Effectively, in text/html, then a vendor specific namespace could be implemented without the use of a prefix - one could simply do this: <div -wexbkit="value"> Those that support the -webkit namespace could then see it (in CSS) as [*|-webkit] Or as [webkitnamespace|-webkit] whereas the others could target it as [-webkit] (Unlike for CSS prefixes [but also not in CSS, if the extension is a specific selector syntax!], then in HTML, we cannot avoid that user agents/authors potentially make use of the vendor prefix in a non-vendor specific fashion.) -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 17 March 2010 06:35:02 UTC