W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > May to June 2001

Re: TAG and WWW Architecture

From: Simon <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Date: 06 Jun 2001 14:15:51 +0000
To: William "F." Hammond <hammond@csc.albany.edu>
Cc: www-talk@w3.org
Message-Id: <991836951.16078.2.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On 06 Jun 2001 14:00:09 -0400, William F. Hammond wrote:
> Simon --
> 
> > I'm afraid that the 'faults' of Namespaces in XML have already raised
> > objections, though I certainly can't comment on whether they are
> > self-serving or not.
> 
> When I see XHTML with namespace extensions working well in both
> (1) Amaya and (2) the development version of Mozilla+SVG+MathML,
> I am very pleased.  The example document instances degrade properly in
> older user agents.  (Namespace syntax in these instances always is
> limited to only the xmlns attribute.  Yes, it is verbose, if, as I
> also think wise, there is no internal declaration subset in
> HTTP-served text/html, but it is not verbose for me as an author using
> gellmu's newcommand with arguments.)

As I note in my earlier message, I don't find XHTML to be much of a
success.  The implementations you note above are interesting, but hardly
evidence that vendors are taking XHTML anywhere nearly as seriously as
they took HTML 2.0, 3.2, or 4.0. 

Also, your being pleased with those particular implementations of
namespaces doesn't at all answer the objections raised to a wide variety
of interpretations of Namespaces in XML outside of XHTML.  You might
want to dig a little deeper before proclaiming that all is well with
Namespaces - you won't have to dig far.

For starters:
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/05/30/deviant.html
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 14:14:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:26 GMT