- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:38:31 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org, Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- CC: Sigurd Lerstad <sigler@bredband.no>
On Wednesday, February 19, 2003, 1:57:33 PM, Robin wrote:
RB> Chris Lilley wrote:
>> @namespace foo url(http://www.w3.org/2000/svg);
>> foo|svg { fill: purple }
>>
>> Not that this will match all occurrences of the svg element in the SVG
>> namespace regardless of whether they use s:, svg: foobar: or nothing
>> as their prefix.
RB> Just to clarify, that "Not" there is really "Note" :)
yes.
>> The alternative that people might have considered trying, svg\:svg is
>> bogus and harmful, because it pretends that the whole string is one
>> local name and because it makes assumptions about what the namespace
>> prefix is.
RB> Note that it would be *theoretically* possible given a document conforming to
RB> XML 1.0 but not to the namespaces rec to have an element the name of which would
RB> contain a colon.
But even in XML 1.0 there was fair warning that it was reserved.
RB> In that case I guess that foo\:bar would be the right way to do
RB> it.
Yes.
RB> I'd think however that anyone foolish enough to use such a
RB> vocabulary may be considered to get what they deserve if
RB> implementations fail to style it.
Very much so. I mention it only because it seems to be prevalent in
one implementation that I am aware of, and i hope that this will
change rather soon.
--
Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2003 08:39:07 UTC