- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:40:35 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25290 --- Comment #4 from Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> --- (In reply to Robin Berjon from comment #3) > This is reserved so that XML Core can potentially add elements using their > own protected naming. I don't think that we should enforce this because: > > 1) It seems extremely unlikely to ever happen. Maybe you can convince the XML people to drop the reservation? > 2) XML parsers don't enforce this (that I've ever seen). That's by design. It'd be hard to introduce a new element if parsers rejected it. :-) > 3) Because of (2), it is not entirely rare for people to actually use > "xml" in their element names. [citation needed] > 4) In the unlikely event that XML Core were to create such an element, I'm > guessing it would be far more likely for it to ever be supported as a custom > element than directly by the browser. The reason here would be to allow the XML Core WG to mint a new element that they have reserved for, and for browsers to implement it, without custom elements having poisoned the name already. This is the same reason we require the dash. > 5) It's unclear to me why XML Core would need this given that they can use > namespaces if they want to, too (notably xml:). I thought namespaces were uncool? :-P Anyway, if we choose to ignore XML's reserved prefix we should drop that requirement from HTML's attributes also. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 14 April 2014 21:40:37 UTC