- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:18:57 +0200
- To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Cc: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Michael Bolger <michael@michaelbolger.net>, public-rdfa@w3.org, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Feb 17, 2009, at 19:35, Ben Adida wrote: > Henri Sivonen wrote: >> The technical issue with using Level 1 setters isn't as bad in >> browsers >> as I had thought, but I disagree with your dismissal of the technical >> issue (see the XOM and browser-internal cases above). > > I think we're getting a little closer, even if we're not going to > agree > 100%. I'll take a look at the other issues you mention, though I don't > think they're nearly as important, because I believe all of the APIs > you > mention would likely need updating of a deeper kind for other HTML5 > changes anyways. What other HTML5 changes do you mean? Can you give an example of an update that any of the APIs I mentioned would need for "other HTML5 changes"? I'm assuming that the following issues are marginal enough that they don't call for API changes: * Not providing full access to non-conforming elements and attributes. (xmlns:foo is currently in this bucket.) * Not providing high-fidelity access to non-XML characters (e.g. form feed and U+FFFF). * Not providing access to conforming "talismans" (xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml " is currently in this bucket). * Not providing full-fidelity access to comments (specifically, the substring "--" inside a comment). * Not providing full access doctype or the quirkiness status of the document. (Consumers that don't have expose DOM to scripts and don't have a CSS renderer don't need to care.) > Would the entirety of DOM/API issues be solved if we added @prefix > support in both XHTML and HTML versions of RDFa, and relegated > xmlns:* only to XHTML1.0+RDFa? Leaving xmlns:*-based CURIE prefixes around with some branding wouldn't solve the problem if people still wanted use software to consume content under that brand. (I care about what software needs to implement more than what branding you put on it.) -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2009 11:19:42 UTC