- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 02:34:42 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2011-08-08 10:17, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Tab Atkins Jr.<jackalmage@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Dominic Cooney<dominicc@google.com>
>>> 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