Re: Element.create(): a proposal for more convenient element creation

On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Julian Reschke <> wrote:
> On 2011-08-08 10:17, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Tab Atkins Jr.<>
>>  wrote:
>>> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Dominic Cooney<>
>>>  wrote:
>>>> Third, is the order of attributes significant for XML namespace
>>>> declarations? eg does this:
>>>> <x xmlns:foo="…" foo:bar="…" />
>>>> mean the same thing as
>>>> <x foo:bar="…" xmlns:foo="…" />
>>>> ? If not, including namespaces in the attribute dictionary is fraught,
>>>> because the iteration order of properties is undefined.
>>> The order is unimportant when setting them via markup, but important
>>> when setting them via successive setAttribute calls.  I'd prefer that
>>> the attribute bag be handled like markup attributes, where xmlns
>>> attributes are handled "early" so that later attributes fall into the
>>> correct namespace.
>> Is there a reason to support namespaced attributes at all? They are
>> extremely rare, especially on the web.
>> Ideally I'd like to deprecate them, but I suspect that's not doable.
>> But I see no reason to support them in new APIs.
> Isn't basic support cheap to get? Just allow the Clark notation
> ("{ns}local") for the attribute name.

First off, that's infinitely more work to support a rarely used
feature than not supporting it at all.

Second, since that notation isn't used anywhere else, it's a pretty
big cost in brain print for users.

So no, I wouldn't say it's cheap.

/ Jonas

Received on Monday, 8 August 2011 09:35:39 UTC