W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2010

Re: Bug 7034

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 01:39:56 +0100
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>, HTMLwg WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100325013956542433.774f4488@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Anne van Kesteren, Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:53:42 +0100:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:43:59 +0100, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> Anne van Kesteren, Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:29:31 +0100:
>>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:17:25 +0100, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>>> Anne van Kesteren, Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:18:43 +0100:
>>>>> I don't think it is acceptable really to use xmlns as mode switch.

>> There would be no delusion if the xmlns string signified a selection of
>> elements from the strict document type.
> It does not seem that would at all help with the people that 
> previously used e.g. XHTML Transitional (assuming they are using 
> obsolete elements for the moment).

I think I said "transitional", without specifying XHTML or HTML. Those 
used to XHTML Transitional would have to use HTML5 without the xmlns, 
if they want to use the elements that xmlns exclude. I don't think this 
would be too confusing.

>>>> That xmlns is permitted inside the <html> start tag *without* there
>>>> being any requirement for XML-ness, will at least create _some_
>>>> confusion.
>>> Yeah, polyglot documents are highly confusing.
>> I don't see how allowing it as talisman only reduces confusion.
> I don't think it does.

Well, then the xmlns "mode" idea looks to be able to solve that problem 
better than the current permission to use it regardless of how the 
document looks like.
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2010 00:40:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:14 UTC