[whatwg] Comments on Web Forms 2.0
ian at hixie.ch
Wed Dec 8 17:19:46 PST 2004
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, I am distributing one such tool myself. Is the tool
> > > > > broken? http://iki.fi/hsivonen/php-utf8/
> > > >
> > > > It depends. If it drops the BOM in the middle of the string, then
> > > > yes.
> > >
> > > It does. My reasoning was that the BOM could only occur in the
> > > middle of a string as an artifact left there when concatenating
> > > strings that start with the BOM.
> > This is incorrect, U+FEFF is a valid character in its own right
> > (albeit deprecated in favour of U+2060) and is only the BOM if found
> > at the start of a string.
> Isn't it the point of deprecation that implementors may opt not to
> support deprecated stuff?
It depends (the word "deprecate" doesn't imply this on its inverse; you
have to check with each instance of a deprecation to find what the case
is). However, in many cases, as, I believe, with U+FEFF, deprecation is
intended to discourage potentially harmful or confusing use, without
breaking backwards compatibility with existing content (and thus still
requiring it of implementations).
> > The documents don't _need_ to be namespaced, they are all in one
> > namespace and don't contain any content that could ever be from other
> > namespaces. The only reason to use namespaces at all is, in fact, to
> > support users of namespace-aware parsers.
> Namespace-aware parsers work just fine with namespaceless documents.
Sure, but they work better when they have a namespace to hook into,
because then the tool can do namespace-based dispatch.
Imagine loading one of these documents into an XML+CSS renderer. How would
it know whether to use the Web Forms 2 stylesheet or the DocBook
stylesheet? With a namespace, the answer is easy.
> > Ok, added:
> > While this section restricts the exact features of XML that a UA may
> > use, these restrictions do not apply to the files used when seeding a
> > form with initial values.
> > Is that ok?
> (Still, limiting the choice of syntactic sugar in the submission format
> has the feel of Appendix C to it.)
There aren't really any restrictions beyond not breaking XML 1.0 rules and
being compatible with both non-namespace-aware and namespace-aware
parsers. Which, of the remaining restrictions, did you want to remove?
> > The spec doesn't say what the recipient is supposed to do with
> > _recognised_ elements or attributes, either. What servers do is pretty
> > much up to the servers, not much we can do about it.
> Attempts to influence the ad hoc works of the ViewSourceClan might
> indeed be futile. However, what you write in the spec could influence
> what the developers of server-side frameworks (eg. Struts) do.
It could, I guess. Did you have any particular ideas in mind? I don't
really know what to add.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg