> Leaving such attributes out by default, whilst claiming some kind of > "fine print" standards compliance, is really a recipe for unnecessary user > frustration.
> On the contrary, once you start second guessing the standards and making > guesses about what users are really trying to do, and making decisions > for them, then some people are going to get different behaviour from > what they rightfully expect according to the standard. People whose > expectations match with the guesses made on their behalf will find that > their software is not portable between DOM implementations. and this hypothetical situation is different from the current situation in exactly what way? > With something as finicky as XML namespaces, you can't just make ad-hoc > decisions as to what the user "really wants". That's why DOM L2 punted > on the whole problem, and left it to DOM L3. so L2 is the "we support namespaces, but we don't really support them" level ? maybe we could take everyone involved with the DOM design out to the backyard and beat them with empty PET bottles until they promise never to touch a computer again ? </F> -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
