Re: Change Proposals for ISSUE-41 (D.E.) vs XHTML and IE9

Shelley Powers, Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:31:57 -0500:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Therefore it appears it would be good not come up with something
>> *completely* different just for text/html.
> I, also, would rather not have a conflicting extensibility mechanism for
> HTML. I'd rather not have anything for HTML, if it can't be compatible with
> XHTML's extensibility.

XHTML compatible text/html extensibility would have to have *some* kind 
of syntax limitation, no? What kind?

E.g. XML permits non-ASCII elements - e.g. 'å' (<å></å>). In text/html 
such an element would not render as an element at all. <aå></aå> would 
work, though, for instance.  In light of this, then perhaps Rob's 
suggested x- prefix would be in line with what we would have to accept, 

Is there an alternative? Perhaps: There is already a tradition for 
namespaces-in-text/html based on XML "islands": That is how it works in 
IE (before version 9 at least). And in AmpleSDK, the SCRIPT element is 
used as an "xml island", it seems. Perhaps some "xml island" variant 
approach would be the most XHTML compatible approach? E.g. if Rob's x- 
syntax was limited to the root element of each namespaced section, then 
this would be a data island variant, I think.
leif halvard silli

Received on Friday, 19 March 2010 13:00:31 UTC