Re: Empty element tags

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:47 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> Uche Ogbuji scripsit:
>
> > > EXCEPT we want to make xmlns a forbidden attribute name right ??
> please ?
> >
> > "xmlns" starts with "xml," so that's been reserved since XML 1.0.
>
> "Reserved" isn't the same as "forbidden".


Yes, but forbidding is one of the things you can do with a name once you've
reserved it.  I was just pointing out that just because I said let's not
treat "br" specially that didn't mean we should treat no names specially.



>  I understood the desire to be
> to forbid the name "xmlns" at the syntax level.
> If we are to have no namespaces, that's a reasonable desire.
>

> OTOH, we could allow "xmlns" and disallow colons, which would give us
> namespaces for elements, but no need to verify them at the parser.
>

-1 on that.  I'd rather see "xmlns" banned.



> > I don't think a subset of XML really can get away with no reserved names,
> > nor should it.
>
> +1
>

> +1. We shouldn't have special words in the spec for the HTML vocab.
> > I'm sure there will be a separate advisory document on best practices
> > for HTML-compatible MicroXML, just as there has been for XHTML and
> > "XHTML5".
>
> HTML is mentioned in one of our goals, and James's original idea was
> that a document which is both well-formed MicroXML and valid XHTML would
> by definition be valid HTML5.  I think that's still something worth
> pursuing.


I think it's OK to pursue it, but I think it's enough pursuit to have an
HTML5 compatibility document to guide people, probably separate, but it
would be OK to have it in an annex.


In any case, if we want HTML compatibility, we absolutely must have
> empty tags because of the "br" element.


+1


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                       http://uche.ogbuji.net
Founding Partner, Zepheira        http://zepheira.com
http://wearekin.org
http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/uogbuji/
http://copia.ogbuji.net
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji
http://twitter.com/uogbuji