- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:21:27 +0200
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:15:15 +0200, Sam Ruby <rubys at intertwingly.net> wrote: > 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. I knew Maciej wrote it but I think your name is up there as I wrote this in a reply to your e-mail which quoted Maciej or something... Anyway, that's besides the point here. (The amount of > should also indicate it's not you who wrote it, methinks.) > 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. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2007 05:21:27 UTC