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: Daniel Schierbeck <daniel.schierbeck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 17:34:13 +0100
Message-ID: <43FF3585.4070007@gmail.com>
To: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
CC: Paul Mitchell <paul@paul-mitchell.me.uk>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

Laurens Holst wrote:
> Paul Mitchell schreef:
>> 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. :)
>
> All elements and attributes starting with ‘xml’ are reserved for 
> generic XML constructs (consequently, you can’t or at least shouldn’t 
> create an element called e.g. <XmlData>). XML Namespaces, which itself 
> uses xmlns:-prefixed attributes that are also in the XML namespace, 
> defines this further that all elements starting with xml: have a fixed 
> namespace which does not have to be declared explicitly.
>
> Thus, the ‘xml:’ prefix is referred to as ‘the XML namespace’. Adding 
> attributes to that has the advantage that it applies to all XML 
> documents, is part of the base standard, and that the namespace 
> doesn’t have to be declared.
>
> Examples are the ‘xml:lang’, ‘xml:base’, ‘xml:id’ and ‘xmlns’ 
> attributes. However, for something to be added to the XML namespace, 
> it must be very generic and apply to almost all or at least a lot of 
> documents. Like, most document types have IDs, most XML files are 
> language-dependant, and all documents can be given a different base URI.
>
>
> ~Grauw
That's exactly what I meant. The question is, are presentation and 
behavior generic enough to be inserted into the XML namespace? I like to 
think so, but if there's someone with a good argument against it I might 
be change my mind.

If such elements are added to the XML namespace, their names should be 
carefully chosen: after all, such an addition would possibly affect 
*all* XML documents! Arguing that <style/> and <script/> is already 
being used in XHTML 1.0, and that people therefore know them, is not 
enough. It's important that we figure out exactly what these elements 
should contain (possibly XML?) and then choose the most appropriate names.


Cheers,
Daniel
Received on Friday, 24 February 2006 16:33:52 GMT

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