On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:15:15 +0200, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:40:39 +0200, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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/>
