On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.resc...@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2011-08-08 10:17, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Tab Atkins Jr.<jackalm...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Dominic Cooney<domin...@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