- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 19:40:45 +0000 (UTC)
- To: juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com
- Cc: www-math@w3.org, dev-tech-mathml@lists.mozilla.org
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com wrote: > > Ian Hickson said: > > > > There are literally tens of millions of pages, for instance, that use > > the "xmlns" attribute on the <a> element, > > What is the problem with using the xmlns attribute on <a> or <html:a> > elements in a XML approach? In browsers today, the following: <a href="test" xmlns=""> ... </a> ...is just a link. If we start supporting xmlns="" as it works in XML, but in HTML, then literally millions of pages are going to suddenly have their links stop working, because <a> in the "" namespace (as opposed to the XHTML namespace), is not an HTML <a>, and thus isn't a link. I've seen hundreds of thousands of occurances of bogus meaningless things like this: <br xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> ...as well as many thousands of pages with xmlns="" values pointing to their own sites (as opposed to any sort of half-sensible namespace). Some pages even have completely bogus namespaces on the root <html> element, which would make the entire page screw up. Even worse, Office HTML, of which there is a LOT on the Web, uses namespaces in a way to trigger IE to do one thing, but relies on the other browsers *not* handling the namespaces to make sure it all works everywhere. (Like I said earlier, I've worked with one browser vendor who tried implementing this namespace thing before, and had to back out because it broke real content in pretty fundamental ways.) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 5 October 2006 19:41:04 UTC