- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:07:17 +0100
- To: "Christof Hoeke" <csad7@t-online.de>
- Cc: "Richard Ishida" <ishida@w3.org>, "'fantasai'" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "'Www-style'" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:57:53 +0100, Christof Hoeke <csad7@t-online.de> wrote: > This is more or less the issue which the XML Namespace specification > would prevent. Defining a namespace with the empty string as > namespaceURI is not allowed in XML... It is in XML 1.1. And there's talk of backporting that to 1.0. Anyway, what makes you think this is an issue? >> No. By default type selectors match elements in every namespace. > > Is that really how it works? If browsers would match elements in "every > namespace" browsers would not handle namespaces as defined by the spec? > (or am I too confused this evening?) Seems like you are. > I somehow assumed as you write later that Browsers somehow use something > like > > @namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" > > for XHTML files. For HTML not using namespaces they use more or less > > @namespace "" > > (in this case the empty string is even allowed in XML but it also hardly > makes any sense at all as there is only the empty namespace anyway if > one could call it that here) Not really. Browsers that have "ua.css" file use @namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; for both HTML and XHTML. But that's besides the point. We're talking about author style sheets here. >> Note that most browsers, for CSS purposes at least, already act as if >> HTML elements are in the http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml namespace. > > (this is what I tried to summarize above) You claimed something about @namespace "" ... >>> I guess I'm looking for information about how this is applied along >>> with the syntactic description. >> >> Why? It's pretty self-evident. (If the namespaces concept of XML >> namespaces is itself not clear, which seems to be the problem here, I >> suggest simply not bothering with them. Namespaces are hardly relevant >> on the Web anyway.) > > (I guess they are relevant if you have something like ATOM embedded in > XHTML or are also useful if you like to style a SVG element embedded in > XHTML (very useful when using Prince-XML). But you are of course right > that most websites work just without.) Atom in XHTML?! SVG and XHTML work perfectly together without needing the namespace support of CSS. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2008 19:03:09 UTC