W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-xml@w3.org > July 2011

RE: XML/HTML Task Force to meet on Tuesday, July 19, 2011

From: Robert Leif <rleif@rleif.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:58:59 -0700
To: "'Norman Walsh'" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: <public-html-xml@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01ed01cc4b05$4b85a070$e290e150$@rleif.com>
      Norm and XML/HTML Task Force
      I believe that the extension of the use of RDFa prefixes in XHTML5
would help to solve the problem of XML in XHTML5. Firstly, I believe that a
solution would be simpler in terms of software engineering and more
importantly politics for XHTML5. The political aspect is that most of the
users who would strongly object to changes to permit the use of XML in HTML5
would be users of HTML5. Users of XHTML5 have already signified that they
want to keep a relationship to XML.
      Since support of RDFa prefixes is legal, but optional, in HTML5 (see
below), we would only be asking for extension of this support.
      *** Decision of the Working Group ***
      Therefore, the HTML Working Group hereby adopts the "Clarify how
      prefixes work in RDFa, and that they're an optional feature." Change
      Proposal for ISSUE-120.  Of the Change Proposals before us, this one
      has drawn the weaker objections
      I believe that this statement refers to:
      I believe that Ada was either the first or one of the first
programming languages to use a renames statement. A prefix is the equivalent
of an Ada and the SPARK(1) subset of Ada renames. Both of these programming
languages are used in mission critical applications, which have much tougher
requirements than XHTML5. Therefore, any arguments against the safety of the
use of prefixes would need considerable evidence. The concept of information
hiding should apply to URLs. Long strings may be necessary for code
traceability but they can clutter up code. This is why curies and latter
prefixes were developed for RDFa.
      The great virtue of a prefix is that the HTML5 parser can be given
specific information on how to handle the prefix and anything that follows
it. This includes ignoring it and letting another tool be responsible for
it. Thus, only a minimal change can be made to XHTML5, particularly if it
supports RDFa prefixes. IDL should be able to provide support for the
equivalent of 
      <xs:openContent mode="interleave">
                     <xs:any namespace="http://www.r.org"
      I would suggest that the namespace be a prefix. This should result in
the xhtml5 parser ignoring all content in elements starting with that
prefix. This should limit the rest of the discussion to how to use XML
schema derived elements in elements, such as xhtml5 forms?
      -----Original Message-----
   From: Norman Walsh [mailto:ndw@nwalsh.com] 
   Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 8:10 AM
   To: rleif@rleif.com
   Cc: public-html-xml@w3.org
   Subject: Re: XML/HTML Task Force to meet on Tuesday, July 19, 2011
      "Robert Leif" <rleif@rleif.com> writes:
      > In any event, an HTML5 schema could serve as a useful test-bed for 
      > experimentation and prototyping.
      I suppose it could, except that HTML5 markup isn't XML and isn't going
to become XML, so it's probably only useful for content creation. Using XML
for content creation and management is likely to be valuable and widespread.
                                              Be seeing you,
      Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Reality is what refuses to go away
      http://nwalsh.com/            | I stop believing in it.--Philip K.
Received on Monday, 25 July 2011 19:59:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:28 UTC