- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 00:17:21 +0200
- To: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>, peter.krantz@gmail.com
- Cc: dorchard@bea.com, public-html@w3.org
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:31:17 +0200, T.V Raman <raman@google.com> wrote: > In a world where one can attach style and behavior to content via > XBL, it becomes fairly easy for sites across the Web to simplify > their markup by introducing small, tightly focused specialized > vocabularies I don't believe RDFa really helps with this though. As it is based on the (horrid, imo) concept of qnames in content two equivalent (not identical) documents can't necessarily be styled using the same binding because the Selectors language and the DOM have no support for qnames in content. An example where this would apply is given an attribute bar that accepts qnames in content on element foo for markup constructs * <foo bar="x:x"> * <foo bar="y:x"> where the x and y prefixes are both bound to the same namespace somewhere higher up in the tree structure they can not be selected using Selectors (using a single selector) or by using simple convenient methods from the DOM. This kind of defeats using XBL for these constructs and it seems much better to use something like * <x:x> * <y:x> with x and y bound to the same namespace (again) as this doesn't have that problem at all. (I don't think this should be solved in Selectors and the DOM by the way as it would require specific knowledge about which attributes contain qnames et cetera. It also makes serialization from a DOM tree structure harder and incompatible with existing practices as rewiring prefixes which currently has no side effects in a normal XHTML document suddenly has.) -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 22:17:56 UTC