Shouldn't style be xml:style or xstyle:style ?

In your WG "Syntax of CSS rules in HTML's "style" attribute" [1], you
are mentioning that:

"This document recommends that any future XML based languages which have
presentational information (whether visual, aural, tactile or other)
also add a STYLE attribute which similarly permits the user to use CSS
to style the document and elements in documents written in that

The 'style' attribute already existing in XHTML, SVG, MathML, ...
doesn't specify any namespace and has, since the default namespace
doesn't apply to attributes, no namespace.

IMHO, one should not be recommending to use an attribute without
namespace to carry a semantical meaning to be used by tools.

In this case, 'style' is a very common word (in several languages) very
likely to be defined with other meanings by XML vocabularies.

The clean way would be to define a namespace for this purpose.

This namespace could be the XML 1.0 namespace if the XML Core WG aggreed
that this practice is generic enough and 'style' would then become

Otherwise, another option could be to create a XML Style specification
and 'style' would then become 'xstyle:style'.

In both cases, the major drawback would be that it would be incompatible
with the current XHTML, SVG, MathML specs.

I think we are, here, facing exactly the same issue that the XML Linking
WG is trying to solve through its "XLink Markup Name Control" [2] note.

Best regards,


Eric van der Vlist       Dyomedea              

Received on Friday, 27 October 2000 04:38:38 UTC