- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:59:55 +0100
- To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
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, no? 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