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: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:26:16 +0100
To: "Larry Masinter" <masinter@adobe.com>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.upgll2l264w2qv@unknown-00-1d-4f-fa-48-ab.lan>
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:10:48 +0100, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>  
wrote:
> HTML5 isn't being designed for incorporation in arbitrary generic XML  
> compound documents in any case.

My understanding is that it is and we are supporting it in such a way.  
E.g. allowing people to use <input type="url"> or <canvas> inside the SVG  
<foreignObject> element, allowing MathML and SVG to be embedded in HTML,  
etc.

We also support <canvas> or <script> in cases such as

   <foo xmlns="http://namespaces.example.com/rock">
    <bar xml="is:cool"/>
    <canvas xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" id="x"/>
    <script xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
     alert("one green rect coming up");
     c = document.getElementById("x");
     con = c.getContext("2d");
     con.fillStyle = "lime";
     con.fillRect(0,0,c.width,c.height);
    </script>
   </foo>

... if that is what you mean with "arbitrary generic XML compound  
documents" and do not intend to suddenly stop supporting that.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 16 February 2009 19:27:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:31 GMT