- From: Brett Zamir <brettz9@yahoo.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:19:19 +0800
- To: www-smil@w3.org
I would also like to raise the question as to why, if SMIL elements are to be namespaced within XHTML, SMIL attributes on XHTML elements are also not to be namespaced (e.g,. the Timing attributes on <body/>)? It would seem to me that a namespace should be restricted to the elements and attributes defined for the original specification. My thought is that original specifications should anticipate for expansion by always explicitly allowing namespaced attributes or even children (e.g., at least anticipate expansion of children into generic containers like <div/> or <span/> or wherever they might be useful, such as in the <head/>)), with expansion being performed with namespaces. I think that besides allowing for third-party expansion, this approach should make it easier for applications to sanitize input, as they could safely and conveniently whitelist an entire namespace (blacklisting only the portions they didn't wish to allow) without fear of the namespace being expanded in the future. Otherwise, applications concerned with security are burdened with whitelisting all possible elements, rather than being able to safely use a blacklist approach. thank you, Brett Zamir
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 02:20:23 UTC