- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 18:17:07 +0300
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Aug 6, 2007, at 15:14, Sam Ruby wrote: > Consider the following XHTML fragment: > > <a:b xmlns:a='urn'/> ... > Questions: These questions allude to the goal being enabling XML namespaces in text/html rather than coming up with *some* method of reducing the probability of extension name collisions. There's a tradeoff between backwards compatibility and using XML namespaces as the collision avoidance mechanism. Philip's suggestion involved the colon but didn't go to namespaces all the way. My point is that if we decide to do extensibility at all with some kind of extender-assigned qualifiers, we should either 1) Not use the colon, keep the extensions in the XHTML namespace in both serializations and be backwards compatible. OR 2) Go all the way to an alternative serialization for namespaced XML 1.0 at the expense of backward compatibility. Going half-way with the colon would make the XML and text/html serializations diverge for good. Doing in-browser namespaced DOM nodes with the motivation bringing existing XML languages to text/html (as opposed to enabling yet-to-be created extensions) carries different considerations. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 6 August 2007 15:17:25 UTC