Re: TWO Change proposals for ISSUE-41 : Distributed Extensibility

On Mar 15, 2010, at 8:28 PM, Ennals, Robert wrote:

> As promised, I have created a change proposal for ISSUE-41,  
> Distributed Extensibility.
>
> In fact, I’ve created two. One proposal is basically my original  
> proposal that I promised to write up as a proposal. This is designed  
> with the aim of preserving compatibility with XML namespaces while  
> taming their worst effects. The other proposal is one I now think I  
> prefer, and is designed with the aim of minimizing the possible  
> risks from extensions to HTML, and making things as simple as  
> possible to users, at the cost of making it more awkward to use  
> existing XML specifications in HTML documents.
>
> They are here:
>
> Proposal X: compatible with XML namespaces:
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/fixedprefixlikexml

I read over Proposal X. I don't think it has enough detail to properly  
evaluate. It does not describe the required changes to the parsing  
algorithm at all. Note that elements and attributes are given a  
namespace at the time they are created, so if any element or attribute  
is to be given a namespace URI other than the null namespace, it has  
to happen at parse time. Here are some examples of highly relevant  
questions that I think are left unanswered in your proposal:

- What is the syntax for a valid xmlns declaration? Is it ok to omit  
the quotes? Can the prefix that's bound be something that's not a  
legal XML prefix? What happens if it isn't?
- What namespace is the xmlns attribute in, in text/html?
- What namespace is an xmlns:foo attribute in, in text/html?
- Is the xml: prefix magic in text/html like it is in XML?
- If an element is reparented or split as part of parsing (for example  
in the case of improperly closed tags), is it affected by xmlns  
declarations at the place where it originally appeared in the  
document, or the place that it is reparented to, or something else?
- If you use innerHTML, do namespace declarations on ancestors of the  
containing element have any effect?

I think describing the needed parser changes in detail would answer  
these questions. That is to say, I would like to know exactly how  
section 8.2 "Parsing HTML documents" would have to change.

Regards,
Maciej