- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 05:57:14 -0700
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com>, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org>
On Oct 6, 2009, at 5:32 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > Julian Reschke On 09-10-06 11.38: > >> Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >>>> I agree that adding something else should be avoided. One way to >>>> avoid it would be to align namspaceURI/localName more between >>>> text/html and application/xhtml+xml. >>> namespaceURI and localName are aligned already, in the current >>> HTML5 draft. What's different is the parser behavior. HTML parsing >>> behavior can't be identical to XML, within compatibility >>> constraints. It's an open question how much closer it could get. >> Yes. > > The Microsoft proposal is to allow namespaces only on <body> and > children of <body>. This to avoid any negative effects of namespaces > used "in the wild" today. As far as I can tell, the recently posted Microsoft proposal allows namespace declarations to appear on any element. There is no restriction to <body> or its children. > > But if one introduced e.g. a <root> element for declaring of > namespaces, then there would be no such effects whatsoever. Also, > this would permit some default behavior for the root element to be > specified, and thus hopefully easier deal with DOM issues? > > For prefixed namespaces, one could do: > <root xmlns:svg='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'> > > For default namespace one could do: > <root xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'> > > For well known namespaces one could offer a shorter syntax. E.g. a > short syntax for prefixed names could be: > <root xmlns:svg="[svg]" > > > Short syntax for default namespace could use (predefined) CURIEs: > <root xmlns="[svg]" > > <root [svg] > > > The word 'root' is known for many from e.g. CSS. And I think having > a root element will allow authors to give more attention to the > namespace _URI_, which really is the key. > > Thoughts? HTML already has a root element. It's called <html>. Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 12:57:51 UTC