- From: Paul Mitchell <paul@paul-mitchell.me.uk>
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:07:38 +0000
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Daniel Schierbeck wrote: >> Indeed, "presentation" is the word I use in my software. Were we >> starting afresh, that is a word I would prefer over "style". > > I think we are in some sense starting afresh - aren't we talking about > having this element in the XML namespace? That's a major break from > the XHTML <style/> element. I think we might as well use an > appropriate element type name, since we break backwards compatability > anyway. I agree. XML is a fresh start alright. I don't think there is any backwards compatibility to break with XML, which is its beauty and its power. Every URL (within reason) is a fresh new namespace, to be defined at will, so the appropriate element name for style or presentation or whatever within one is entirely a matter for you and your application of it. Anyone can safely use anyone else's namespace tags if they follow the same rules, and any tags you don't recognise, you ignore.. I do my own little thing with XHTML+XML (namespace http://www.libertini.net/libertus/outreach/) and know, for certain, that no-one else's will clash, ever. Likewise, I don't expect anyone to adopt my tags or their ruleset, but they can if they want to. What do you mean by "the" XML namespace? I did propose injecting <style> and <script> into it, but that is only part of my evil master-plan to have XHTML declared "the" XML namespace, if not "of default" then at least "of last resort". I'm sure you must mean something else, because no-one likes my plan. :) -- Paul Mitchell www.paul-mitchell.me.uk
Received on Friday, 24 February 2006 15:08:25 UTC