W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > October 2013

[Bug 23368] Clarify that it is permitted to declare the namespace of the xlink: prefix on the <html> element.

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 23:33:14 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-23368-2486-GkvdLHbSDb@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23368

Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |LATER

--- Comment #4 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> ---
(In reply to Robin Berjon from comment #3)
> I understand that this may be convenient, but I have never heard a user
> request for it

In my view, it is *pretty* common to declare prefixes on the root element. It
is more like it is uncommon to declare them anywhere else. Just think of RDFa,
or? Also, I have seen many prefixed elements whose prefix was declared on the
non-prefixed root element.

> and checking with people who write validators it's not
> something they've been asked about either.

The validator accepts RDFa prefixes declared on the root element.

> I think that this is in the "perhaps nice to have" department, and the
> effort seems to be greater than warranted by the usage.

The argument that woudl be simplest for myself to accept would be if it was
problematic to put it on the root element. Disadvnatages. Does it make things
less robust, for instance? To answer my own question: Perhaps, yes. E.g. it
would cause the SVG to not work if copied and pasted into an
application/xhtml+xml document. May be it would be worth stating, at least in
Polyglot Markup, that xlink: MUST be declared in the specific root element?

> We can keep this as something to look at in the 5.1 time frame, while we're
> not busy shipping 5.0, but I really wouldn't block anything on it. I
> recommend you remove the blocker and revisit this issue later.

OK. For polyglot, it was most pressing to get clear about what HTML5
*currently* says, as the draft is saying xlink: *can* be declared on <html> -
and we were not sure why me mad it say so.

Anyway: I mark this bug as “Resolved, Later”, then, OK?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2013 23:33:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:45 UTC