- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:15:15 -0400
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:40:39 +0200, Sam Ruby <rubys at intertwingly.net> > wrote: >>>>> To give a specific example: say I make my own "mjsml" prefix with >>>>> namespace "http://example.org/mjsml". In HTML4 UAs, to look up an >>>>> "mjsml:extension" attribute using getAttribute("mjsml:extension"). >>>>> In HTML5 UAs, I'd have to use >>>>> getAttributeNS("http://example.org/mjsml", "extension"). And >>>>> neither technique would work on both (at least as I understand your >>>>> proposal). > > By the way, the reason this is not consistent with XML is that it would > be just as ok to use a different prefix. By basing this on the prefix > (which is needed if you want this to be compatible with HTML, etc.) > you're moving the semantics from the namespace to the prefix, which > seems like a bad idea. For starters, you are misattributing the quote above. I did not write those words. As to your point -- and you so colorfully put it on your weblog -- "Standards Suck". And in this case, I will argue that the current HTML5 spec leads one to the conclusion that getAttribute("mjsml:extension") will work, at least for the HTML serialization of HTML5. I did not write that quote. I did not write -- or even contribute to -- that portion of the spec. - Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2007 05:15:15 UTC