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

Re: ISSUE-41/ACTION-97 decentralized-extensibility

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 16:39:20 +0200
Message-ID: <4ACB5698.3050809@xn--mlform-iua.no>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com>, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org>
Maciej Stachowiak On 09-10-06 14.57:

> On Oct 6, 2009, at 5:32 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> 
>> Julian Reschke On 09-10-06 11.38:
>>
>>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>>> I agree that adding something else should be avoided. One way to  
>>>>> avoid it would be to align namspaceURI/localName more between  
>>>>> text/html and application/xhtml+xml.
>>>> namespaceURI and localName are aligned already, in the current  
>>>> HTML5 draft. What's different is the parser behavior. HTML parsing  
>>>> behavior can't be identical to XML, within compatibility  
>>>> constraints. It's an open question how much closer it could get.
>>> Yes.
>> The Microsoft proposal is to allow namespaces only on <body> and  
>> children of <body>. This to avoid any negative effects of namespaces  
>> used "in the wild" today.
> 
> As far as I can tell, the recently posted Microsoft proposal allows  
> namespace declarations to appear on any element. There is no  
> restriction to <body> or its children.


The proposal has an optional component about Default Namespaces, 
which has a special rule for the <html> element:

"2: Optional Component 1 - Default Namespaces
   [...]
  EXCEPTION: Default namespace declarations are ignored on the 
root <html> element. This is for compatibility - many documents 
declare the XHTML namespace on the root element, some incorrectly."

So, OK, I guess <head> and <body> is what I should have said 
instead of just <body>.

 
>> But if one introduced e.g. a <root> element for declaring of  
>> namespaces, then there would be no such effects whatsoever. Also,  
>> this would permit some default behavior for the root element to be  
>> specified, and thus hopefully easier deal with DOM issues?
>>
>> For prefixed namespaces, one could do:
>>  <root xmlns:svg='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'>
>>
>> For default namespace one could do:
>>  <root xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'>
>>
>> For well known namespaces one could offer a shorter syntax. E.g. a  
>> short syntax for prefixed names could be:
>>  <root xmlns:svg="[svg]" >
>>
>> Short syntax for default namespace could use (predefined) CURIEs:
>>  <root xmlns="[svg]" >
>>  <root [svg] >
>>
>> The word 'root' is known for many from e.g. CSS. And I think having  
>> a root element will allow authors to give more attention to the  
>> namespace _URI_, which really is the key.
>>
>> Thoughts?
> 
> HTML already has a root element. It's called <html>.

Not sure what you meant by that.

E.g. an SVG section also has it's own root. I could imagine 
something like this, in CSS, to select the root element of a SVG 
section within a HTML document:

@namespace svg url("http://www.w3.org/2000/svg");
svg|root{}

Would be quite helpful, to authors, I imagine.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 14:39:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:09 UTC