- From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 19:25:18 +0100
- To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- CC: www-svg@w3.org
Jim Ley wrote: > "Robin Berjon" <robin.berjon@expway.fr> >>Then the meaning of the enclosed XPath would change as well. This is >>the pandora box of QNames in content. However if other languages >>have survived it, why not SVG? > > Firstly because I've yet to see any others survive in the context of a > dynamic document, I also believe non-author inserted content is common in > these final form rendering XML apps (XHTML/SVG) which introduce problems > which aren't there in XML as a data format land. That depends on what you use to generate your SVG. If it's an XML-aware method, then getting at the prefix shouldn't be too much of a problem. For extra safety you can always redeclare the namespace on the element on which you use it (burden wise it has a similar cost to the xmlns() scheme, but it has a slightly less clunky/compact syntax). > I insert content in all the HTML I render, which means collisions are > likely to occur, so we need to ensure that the methods work, I'm not > confident that having content contain the prefix will do that, anyway the > discussion has got into a little too much detail considering no-ones > really looked at doing it. As I said I'm not a great fan of qnames in content, I just feel that alternative options are too painful to use for hand-authored situations. Your anxiety when it comes to dynamic content is justified though, so maybe the best option would be simply to allow for both approaches. -- Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr> Research Engineer, Expway 7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
Received on Monday, 18 November 2002 13:25:46 UTC