W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > January 2000

Re: tricky XHTML 1.0 namespace question

From: David Megginson <david@megginson.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:16:19 -0500 (EST)
To: XML-Dev Mailing list <xml-dev@ic.ac.uk>, www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <m3ya9otspl.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) writes:

[on prefixed and unprefixed attributes]

> Why should they state it explicitly, when the Namespace REC explicitly
> says that is NOT the case?  The fact that people on this list have
> been confused about this does not mean the HTML WG is confused or is
> responsible for sorting out their confusion.  See my message to Dave
> about this [1] for a succinct statement of why this is a time-wasting
> red herring which IS perfectly clearly specified in the Namespace
> REC.

The language in the Namespaces REC means that the two *can* be
distinguished, not that they must be, and every Namespaces-based spec
should include a explicit statement of its usage.  Based on the
examples in the spec, RDF, for example, doesn't distinguish

  <rdf:Description about="http://www.foo.com/">


  <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.foo.com/">

and I'll note that it is entirely conformant in not doing so.  In
XHTML, likewise, we have to infer what its usage is from examples
unless the WG gives us a explicit statement.

All the best,


David Megginson                 david@megginson.com
Received on Monday, 17 January 2000 14:19:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:52 UTC