User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:22.214.171.124) Gecko/20060728 Firefox/126.96.36.199 Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:188.8.131.52) Gecko/20060728 Firefox/184.108.40.206 "" is an illegal value for a namespaceURI. null is a legal value "null" is also a legal value (though an unwise one) Showing nothing where null is meant, could make people think "" is meant. Just showing null the same way as "null" would be shown is of course even worse, but adding a very distinctive (background)color+font variation would work, and is the way to go IMHO namespaces are hard to grasp and therefore easy to misimplement, for both reasons an extra clear on namespaces future version of the DOM Inspector is very welcome Reproducible: Always
I don't think a color variation is the right way per se to go (a11y reasons). I once proposed setting the value to "(null)", but that didn't get very far.
> italic (null)? personally i could easily overlook the difference
italic wouldn't exactly be assessable either, would it?
> italic wouldn't exactly be assessable either, would it? Sorry, accessible, not assessable.
it certainly doesn't have the colorblindness issue that colors have.