- From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:16:52 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
Simon Pieters: .... > > Even more confusing: > > The CSS fragment notes > > @namespace url(http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml); > > > > But obviously, these elements are not even defined in the legacy module > > of XHTML 1.1 > > https://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_legacym > > odule > > > > Doesn't this mean, that they are not in the XHTML namespace, > > therefore the rule does not apply? > > If they only appear within HTML2, they obviously belong not to the XHTML > > namespace, if HTML5 does not add them. > > All elements (ignoring <math> and <svg> and their descendants) are put in > the XHTML namespace by the HTML parser. > I use only the XML variant of HTML5 - and this only in EPUB 3 (this defines, that XHTML documents in EPUB-3-archives are the XML variant of HTML5). For other applications I use XHTML versions with an indication of the version to get some defined meaning of the documents. Therefore I do not care much about HTML5 tag soup parsers. However, wasn't it mentioned, that those tag soup parsers do not care about namespaces at all and that the tag soup variant of HTML5 has no namespace functionality? This seems to imply that those CSS rules/suggestions apply only to the XML variant of HTML5 anyway. But if HTML5 does not define such elements, I think, they cannot belong to the XHTML namespace, because no other XHTML variant seems to define them either. But this might be just another problem of a language variant without version indication and without a scheme like a DTD to indicate al least, which elements and attributes can appear. Olaf
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2016 14:18:17 UTC