W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2008

Re: [css3-namespace] what is a "no namespace"

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:07:17 +0100
To: "Christof Hoeke" <csad7@t-online.de>
Cc: "Richard Ishida" <ishida@w3.org>, "'fantasai'" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "'Www-style'" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.t6scqfsv64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:57:53 +0100, Christof Hoeke <csad7@t-online.de>  
> This is more or less the issue which the XML Namespace specification  
> would prevent. Defining a namespace with the empty string as  
> namespaceURI is not allowed in XML...

It is in XML 1.1. And there's talk of backporting that to 1.0. Anyway,  
what makes you think this is an issue?

>>  No. By default type selectors match elements in every namespace.
> Is that really how it works? If browsers would match elements in "every  
> namespace" browsers would not handle namespaces as defined by the spec?  
> (or am I too confused this evening?)

Seems like you are.

> I somehow assumed as you write later that Browsers somehow use something  
> like
> 	@namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
> for XHTML files. For HTML not using namespaces they use more or less
> 	@namespace ""
> (in this case the empty string is even allowed in XML but it also hardly  
> makes any sense at all as there is only the empty namespace anyway if  
> one could call it that here)

Not really. Browsers that have "ua.css" file use @namespace  
"http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; for both HTML and XHTML. But that's  
besides the point. We're talking about author style sheets here.

>>  Note that most browsers, for CSS purposes at least, already act as if  
>> HTML elements are in the http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml namespace.
> (this is what I tried to summarize above)

You claimed something about @namespace "" ...

>>> I guess I'm looking for information about how this is applied along  
>>> with the syntactic description.
>> Why? It's pretty self-evident. (If the namespaces concept of XML  
>> namespaces is itself not clear, which seems to be the problem here, I  
>> suggest simply not bothering with them. Namespaces are hardly relevant  
>> on the Web anyway.)
> (I guess they are relevant if you have something like ATOM embedded in  
> XHTML or are also useful if you like to style a SVG element embedded in  
> XHTML (very useful when using Prince-XML). But you are of course right  
> that most websites work just without.)

Atom in XHTML?! SVG and XHTML work perfectly together without needing the  
namespace support of CSS.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2008 19:03:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:01 GMT