Re: SVG 1.1 test missing SVG namespace

On Sep 26, 2008, at 01:04 , Doug Schepers wrote:
> Only if you want to be a stickler about namespace declarations, which
> are out of vogue these days.  I see merit in allowing for a set of  
> known
> root elements and fixed namespace prefixes for Web-centric  
> languages, in
> addition to having namespace declarations for inclusion of languages
> that haven't yet "made it" into the top tier (and which could be added
> to the list as they mature in use).

+1

> I would like to think that SVG and MathML could be in that "usual
> suspects" list, as well as Xlink, SMIL, and RDF.  (RDF and RDFa make
> such heavy use of namespaces anyway that I'm not sure that it makes
> sense to drop the RDF NS... unless we also add Dublin Core and  
> Creative
> Commons to the list of known friendlies).

RDF isn't useful at all without namespaces, it's safe to exclude from  
this list.

> I would support the creation of a spec (Namespaces in XML 2.0?  XML  
> 2.0?
> Namespaces and Host Languages 1.0?) that would codify these changes in
> namespaces.  Admittedly, I haven't looked at some of the problems in
> detail, but it would be interesting to explore them.

-1. We don't need such a spec, I'm pretty sure it would never happen  
anyway. Having the host languages just state that "when you see these  
elements, they're from that language over there" should be enough, no?  
Architecturally I think this is a fine cop-out for infrastructural  
languages, i.e. those that you need to have implemented by browser  
vendors (as opposed to implementing yourself on top of a browser).

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
     Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/

Received on Friday, 26 September 2008 07:59:25 UTC