- From: Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 21:18:12 -0500
On 12/1/06, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Robert Sayre wrote: > > I don't care if features that rely on XML serialization break. > > I *really* don't understand what you're asking for. You want to be able to > use some features but don't care if they work or not? I will keep trying. I don't care if XML serialization and namespace idiosyncrasies need to become marginalized, as DTDs are today. I do value the ability to add user-defined tags in a decentralized way, but the only method I care about is using a container element with an attribute containing a URI to delineate the user-defined content. > > > I don't want to use namespaces. I want to use an xmlns attribute. > > The only possible reasoning I could see for such a strange request would > be if you intended to try and parse HTML documents using an XML parser. No, I want a way to qualify user-defined tags, without introducing prefix scopes. That is, fine-grained vocabulary mixing is not a goal. > Could you explain the use case for xmlns="" if you don't actually want > namespaces? It's a way to uniquely identify a fence-post, like the SVG example I posted earlier. <http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006-December/008171.html> But it is a question, not a request. I don't want to request something that would be harmful. So, what is the downside of the example in that earlier email? -- Robert Sayre
Received on Friday, 1 December 2006 18:18:12 UTC