- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:26:24 +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, Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:27:42 -0700: > > On Mar 16, 2010, at 11:34 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > >> Maciej Stachowiak, Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:15:16 -0700: >> >>> 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. > > I could be misunderstanding, but my reading of Robert's Proposal X is > that it would always place attributes in the namespace specified by > the relevant xmlns declaration, regardless of whether the browser has > special knowledge of a particular prefix. (Or if there is no > namespace declaration in the document, the attribute would end up in > the null namespace). Thus, which of the above selectors matches would > be consistent in all browsers for any given document, assuming all > browsers implement Proposal X. I read what he says. I claim that it isn't as he (and you) say. Let's say we have a Webkit specific style attribute: -webkit:style="color:red" I suppose internally, Webkit would use its regular CSS interpreter. Hence Webkit see this attribute as being in the "@style namespace". Whereas other vendors do not. >> 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] > > Robert's Proposal Y would not place prefixed attributes in a > namespace (other than the null namespace). Thus, in all browsers, > only an attribute selector with no prefix specified would match. So effectively, it would not be a vendor specific prefix? It is all just a promise from the other browsers: "No, we will not react to [-webkit] even if we see it" ? -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 17 March 2010 14:27:03 UTC