- From: Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>
- Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 20:03:17 -0500 (EST)
- To: www-html@w3.org
On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 JOrendorff@ixl.com wrote: > > > [XML Namespaces] > > > > It's a bogosity, and it doesn't eliminate the problem. > > It may be a bogosity-- Have no doubt;) > but it does eliminate the problem. No, it just renames it:) (Alpha-renaming doesn't really solve anything.) > If you use XML namespaces, you won't have naming conflicts. It's an illusion - or, if you like, submission to pedestrian software (that can't do any better, XML or no XML.) > > Good advice. But avoid the colon. It's "reserved for namespace > > experiments". Emphasis on 'experiments' optional but advisable:) > > In XML it is. In Tag Soup, anything goes, Oh good! So the XML-ization is just a mare's nest. > especially since (I speculate) extensions are usually implemented > by modifying a nonstandard Tag Soup parser in decidedly > nonstandard ways. That's the part that wasn't clear: were these 'custom tags' aimed at a custom audience, so to speak, or the public at large? > Some such convention is a good idea, although I'm not sure I like > yours. An <alt> element, and an html:alt="" attribute for short, > might cover the same ground better. I'm not sure what the attribute means, but I see no reason to introduce factitious elements into the document hierarchy where an attribute would do the job. (As for 'htign', or more formally, an ArcIgnD attribute, my suggestion is just a "minimal version" adaptation of a technique that has been standard for quite a while now, with greater functionality. See, e.g. <URL:http://www.isogen.com/papers/archintro.html>.) Arjun
Received on Saturday, 12 February 2000 19:42:40 UTC