- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:21:53 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, 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 18, 2009, at 13:49, Julian Reschke wrote: > Henri Sivonen wrote: >> On Feb 17, 2009, at 19:24, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> Henri Sivonen wrote: >>>> ... >>>> Although this looks like a non-problem in browsers because the >>>> Namespace-unaware DOM Level 1 view is available, it is a >>>> technical problem with APIs that only provide a Namespace-aware >>>> representation. For example, XOM doesn't allow attributes called >>>> xmlns:foo in the data model. Non-browser consumers are important, >>>> and it should be perfectly reasonable to use XOM in such a >>>> consumer. >>>> ... >>> >>> Could you elaborate what exactly the problem with XOM is? I didn't >>> get it from this paragraph. >> It doesn't represent XML attribute spelled "xmlns:foo" in the XML >> source code as attributes in the API. Thus, if you write a XOM- >> based consumer for RDFa-in-XML as currently defined, you can't just >> swap the parser to an HTML5 parser and have it work. > > It appears to me that this could be considered to be either a bug in > the HTML5 parser, or in XOM. Absent RDFa, it clearly isn't a bug in either. RDFa is what adds a problem. >> currently drafted HTML5 features need the change that exposing >> xmlns:foo-based RDFa would require for consistency with the >> exposure of xmlns:foo in XML. > > So is there a precise requirement in HTML5 that mandates how a > parser must expose xmlns:foo when producing SAX events, for instance? No. On the contrary, the parser is explicitly allowed not to expose them. But obviously, that solution wouldn't work for RDFa as proposed. | If the XML API doesn't support attributes in no namespace | that are named "xmlns", attributes whose names start with | "xmlns:", or attributes in the XMLNS namespace, then the | tool may drop such attributes. http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#coercing-an-html-dom-into-an-infoset >>> That doesn't seem to be true. An implementation of setAttribute >>> (L1) would just need to know that an attribute named "xmlns:*" is >>> something special, and internally map it. >> Well, internally mapping it specially would be a non-zero change/ >> cost on browsers making the line of argument that there's no cost >> or action required on behalf of browser vendors bogus. > > I would assume that a sane implementation that supports both DOM > level 1 and DOM level 2 already does that. But I've been wrong on > the smarts of DOM implementations before :-) Evidence suggests they don't do it already. http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-January/018242.html -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2009 13:22:36 UTC