- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 02:41:29 +0200
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: public-webapi <public-webapi@w3.org>
Jonas Sicking wrote: > What are the remaining issues that are still holding us back? It seems > to me like if we know we're going to add this in a version 2, but we > already have a done specification for it, why not include it? In relation to the NSResolver, the major issue is that I need to define how to handle hostile NSResolvers and deal with unexpected DOM modifications. > It seems to me that implementations aren't going to be affected one way > or the other on this. If we do include it in the spec anyone can still > implement everything but namespaced selectors. I think implementors are > competent enough to prioritize appropriately without us holding their > hand. Especially if their CSS engine does not yet support namespaced > selectors. > ... > > I guess except that they couldn't do silly PR claims like "full > Selectors API v1 support"). If we wanted to satisfy such desires we > could say that it's ok to claim full support even without NSResolver if > your CSS engine does not support namespaced selectors. I decided to retain the NSResolver in the spec for now. However, I have made support for it optional and defined that if it isn't supported, a NOT_SUPPORTED_ERR exception must be raised if an NSResolver is passed. You can review the changes in the latest editor's draft. http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api/#resolving -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Sunday, 11 May 2008 00:42:09 UTC