W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xsl-editors@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Coordination of <script> between SVG, XSLT 1.1 and HTML 4.01

From: Jon Ferraiolo <jferraio@Adobe.COM>
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 14:09:41 -0800
Message-Id: <4.2.2.20010303140502.01b789d0@mailsj.corp.adobe.com>
To: "Clark C. Evans" <cce@clarkevans.com>
Cc: "Arnold Curt" <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com>, "'xml-dev@lists.xml.org'" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>, "'xsl-editors@w3.org'" <xsl-editors@w3.org>, "'www-svg@w3.org'" <www-svg@w3.org>
I agree with Clark that the best long-term strategy is to define a common 
<script> element that is shared across all W3C languages which allow 
embedded scripts. I'm not sure about the 'xml:' script prefix, however. It 
would seem to me that "xml:" should be reserved for things that are very 
fundamental XML features, whereas scripting is common but not fundamental. 
A W3C scripting namespace seems more appropriate to me, as in 
<w3cscriptingNS:script>. (usually, you would choose a shorter but less 
descriptive prefix.)

Jon Ferraiolo
SVG Editor
jferraio@adobe.com

At 08:47 PM 3/2/01 -0500, Clark C. Evans wrote:
>On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Arnold, Curt wrote:
> > XSLT 1.1, SVG 1.0 and HTML 4.01 define a <script> element,
> > however their current forms are not coordinated.
>
>Rather than coordinate their forms, why not just have a
>seperate stand-alone xml:script recommendation.  This, IMHO,
>would be better modulization.  It would also allow scripts
>to be used across XSLT, DOM, SVG, etc., without change.
>And, it could allow for "script catalogues", etc.
>
>Clark
Received on Saturday, 3 March 2001 18:52:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:52 GMT