W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2009

Re: What's the problem? "Reuse of 1998 XHTML namespace is potentially misleading/wrong"

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:37:13 +0100
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>, plh@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.uo8igbjiwxe0ny@widsith.local>

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:28:43 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  

> Robin Berjon wrote:
>>  On Feb 12, 2009, at 10:30 , Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> The problem is that you do not always have context.
>>> For instance, XHTML elements can appear in many other XML documents,  
>>> re-using the document markup semantics. In this case, you frequently  
>>> have a single element, and no context at all.
>>  That's a problem of the host language. Some elements need context and  
>> that's the end of their story. I don't think that <li> is broken  
>> because you don't know what type of list item it is without its  
>> container, or
> Where's the problem here? If some vocabulary uses <xhtml:li>, that means  
> "this is a list item". The container format may define its own list, for  
> instance.
>> that svg:rect is broken because while it retains its semantics it  
>> cannot be rendered without a container to define its viewport.
>>  If a host language reuses from XHTML, then it's up to it to provide  
>> the necessary context for interpretation.
> But that's a new situation. Until today, to find out what xhtml:foo  
> means, you checked the HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.whatever spec.
> Once we allow two different parties to continue development of the  
> language, there's no single answer anymore.

Sure. It now becomes "look at the markup spec for HTML5 and for XHTML2 if  
you want to be sure". If we agree to coordinate with them where there are  
clashes, it becomes "find out which of HTML5 and XHTML2 the element /  
attribute is in, and check it". Which, if there is a simple document  
somewhere that just lists the elements and attributes without too much  
else, isn't such a hard task.

In fact, if it is a real problem, it shouldn't be too hard to publish a  
"differences between spec" - and maintaining that would be a useful check  
on the coordination process (although it would be work for someone and I  
am not volunteering to do it, so it's just wishful thinking for now).

> So this breaks something that worked just fine before.

Actually, it resolves the issue that arose when two different paths for  
the evolution of HTML arose. Which is some years ago now.



Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 10:38:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:42 UTC