Re: Another possible compromise re namespaces in HTML

>    From: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
>    Cc: tai <tai@g5n.co.uk>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
> 
>    On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 8:53 AM, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> wrote:
>    > The html5 parser special cases unprefixed svg and mathml elements
>    > (only) so unless I misunderstand what you meant above then these two
>    > items are contradictory. There are no "standard prefixes" for svg and
>    > mathml, if you want to make an xhtml document work also in the html
>    > serialisation then redefining the default namespace is the only option
>    > supported by the curent draft.
> 
>    I believe he is referring to the 'common' prefixes used for svg and
>    mathml in xml - "svg" and "math".  I don't believe the use of
>    "standard" was intended to refer to the HTML5 standard.
> 
>    ~TJ
> 

Perhaps, but I still don't understand it. Whatever is meant by
"standard", the proposal appears to be that HTML5 predefines a prefix
for SVG and MathML (which then must be used unprefixed) and that
furthermore the unprefixed mathml or svg elements must not use the
xmlns="..." declaration, so it is not possible to make the same fragment
work in both html and xhtml serialisations.

I'm not sure why you say math is a common prefix for mathml, I'm not
sure that I've ever seen it. Unprefixed use is by far the most common,
followed I would guess by mml: and m:.

David

________________________________________________________________________
The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England
and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is:
Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom.

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is
powered by MessageLabs. 
________________________________________________________________________

Received on Friday, 27 November 2009 09:23:57 UTC