- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 08:26:37 +0200
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Jonas Sicking wrote: > ... > I'm not actually a big fan of this proposal. Experience with > namespaces in XML has showed (at least to me) that namespaces are too > complex for authors to understand. The most recent example of this was > the discussion on RDFa+HTML where it was clear that even the experts > that developed RDFa thought of nodes as receiving their meaning from > their nodeName rather than from their localName+namespaceURI. > ... Pointer? > Additionally, the SVG working group is hard at work trying to get away > from exposing their users (SVG authors) to the SVG namespace. I'm > assuming that this is based on feedback from authors disliking the SVG > namespace. > > Even the RDFa working group has moved away from the namespacing > mechanism that XML Namespaces is using. RDFa is based on CURIEs, which > is a compacted single string, rather than the string-tuple that XML > Namespaces force upon users. > ... Not sure what you're comparing here. As far as I can tell, there is no proposal here to use prefixes (a la qname or curie) in content. > ... BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 1 October 2009 06:27:18 UTC