W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Namespace prefix or not?

From: Bruce Miller <bruce.miller@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:27:38 -0500
Message-id: <4F2FE35A.5080708@nist.gov>
To: William F Hammond <hammond@csc.albany.edu>
Cc: Neil Soiffer <NeilS@dessci.com>, "www-math@w3.org" <www-math@w3.org>
On 02/05/2012 06:18 PM, William F Hammond wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
>
>> Indeed MathPlayer seems to be accepting it both ways
>> (maybe it always did, and my memory's going),
>> as does firefox, so the prefix-less way looks like the
>> best solution...
>
> I've always thought the verbose way (writing out the xmlns on
> each<math>  element) was best.
>
> Among the reasons:
...

I think I'll be a curmudgeon when I grow up ---
I seem to have an affinity for the unpopular choices,
and am grumpy about them: I prefer xml over sgml
and certainly html5; prefixed namespaces over non,
heck namespaces at all!!

But your list is pretty convincing;
I'll go this route (but I'll still grumble about it).

Thanks, Bill;
bruce

> 1.  A larger class of processors can deal with it.
>
> 2.  I want to view xml for documents (as opposed to EDI) as as a
> category that is a subcategory of SGML.  (And there continues to be
> "political" resistance to the use of xml namespaces in author-level
> xml document types for documents.)
>
> 3.  With verbose use of xmlns and a few other conventions, it's
> possible to generate xhtml+mathml document instances that require only
> a couple of revisions near the top to become correct text/html
> instances of html5.
>
> 4.  I have a private local use sgml definition for a profiled subset
> of html5, text/html serialization, as an sgml document type.
>
> BTW, Henri Sivonen's html5 online validator is found at
> http://html5.validator.nu/
>
>                                      -- Bill
>
Received on Monday, 6 February 2012 15:41:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 February 2012 15:41:38 GMT