W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2006

Re: [BULK] - Re: [XHTML2] Spirit of "1.1.3. XHTML 2 and Presentation" (PR#7759)

From: Paul Mitchell <paul@paul-mitchell.me.uk>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:07:38 +0000
Message-ID: <43FF213A.3050309@paul-mitchell.me.uk>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

Daniel Schierbeck wrote:

>> Indeed, "presentation" is the word I use in my software. Were we 
>> starting afresh, that is a word I would prefer over "style".
>
> I think we are in some sense starting afresh - aren't we talking about 
> having this element in the XML namespace? That's a major break from 
> the XHTML <style/> element. I think we might as well use an 
> appropriate element type name, since we break backwards compatability 
> anyway.

I agree. XML is a fresh start alright. I don't think there is any 
backwards compatibility to break with XML, which is its beauty and its 
power. Every URL (within reason) is a fresh new namespace, to be defined 
at will, so the appropriate element name for style or presentation or 
whatever within one is entirely a matter for you and your application of 
it. Anyone can safely use anyone else's namespace tags if they follow 
the same rules, and any tags you don't recognise, you ignore..

I do my own little thing with XHTML+XML (namespace 
http://www.libertini.net/libertus/outreach/) and know, for certain, that 
no-one else's will clash, ever. Likewise, I don't expect anyone to adopt 
my tags or their ruleset, but they can if they want to.

What do you mean by "the" XML namespace? I did propose injecting <style> 
and <script> into it, but that is only part of my evil master-plan to 
have XHTML declared "the" XML namespace, if not "of default" then at 
least "of last resort". I'm sure you must mean something else, because 
no-one likes my plan. :)
--
Paul Mitchell
www.paul-mitchell.me.uk
Received on Friday, 24 February 2006 15:08:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:43 GMT