- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:21:18 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:05:11 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: > Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> Shelley took up the problem that SVG editors are known to place >> namespaces in their code, thus automatically being invalid - bug >> 7510 [1]. >> >> However, online services such as Gooogle Sites [2] (formerly known >> as Jotspot [3]) do the same, directly in the HTML (XHTML served as >> text/HTML). E.g. from the Chromium homepage[4]: >> >> <body xmlns="http://www.google.com/ns/jotspot" id="body" class=" en"> >> ... > > Good catch. > > But isn't this simply a case of a bad xmlns attribute value (a proper > bug), instead of a try to use namespaces for embedding additional > data? That body element holds several elements carefully linked to the XHTML namespace. For example: <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" id="COMP_14720868319272995" class="sites-embed"> So they try to discern between the namespaces. There are also, inside the XHTML namespaced elements, several sections of jotId="value". If it was valid, then perhaps they would had chosen jot:id instead. Since Inkscape documents uses a prefixed namespace, it is easy to see that the extra attributes add extra info. In Google Sites documents they use a default namespace with code which - but for the namespace - looks exactly like its XHTML counterpart. This makes it harder to guess whether, on the editor side, they add any extra/other info than the identical XHTML would have done. But the choice of a default namespace is perhaps not especially meaningful - for us. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 20 November 2009 15:21:59 UTC