Re: Removing xml namespace prefix

Le 11/07/2013 18:33, Paul LeBeau a écrit :
> What about xml:id?
>
> Out of curiosity, what is the story with xml:id?  It was preferred 
> over plain id in the 1.2T spec, but is almost completely missing from 
> SVG2.
The story is similar to the story of xlink:*, xml:id was supposed to be 
*the* way to give an id to elements and have common understanding across 
XML languages. So SVG was a good W3C pupil and added it, but in the end, 
xml:id has not gained traction among W3C specs, few (any?) specs use it 
and this was creating confusion because the 'id' attribute was still 
there, because of the 'xml:' prefix. So for SVG 2, the group decided to 
drop it.

Cyril

>
> Paul
>
>
>
> On 12 July 2013 02:58, Cyril Concolato 
> <cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr 
> <mailto:cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr>> wrote:
>
>     Dear WG,
>
>     I'm working on ACTION-3412: "Fix spec to remove need for xml
>     namespace prefix"
>     (http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/3412).
>     IIRC, the idea behind this action was to simplify the authoring of
>     content for SVG beginners, removing the need for prefixes (xlink:,
>     xml: ...).
>
>     There are currently 3 attributes that use the xml namespace prefix:
>     - xml:base
>     - xml:lang
>     - xml:space
>
>     For the xml:base attribute, we have recorded Issue 62 in the
>     current draft, which says:
>     "Are we happy to keep promoting the use of ‘xml:base’? Is it a use
>     case worth trying to include a more HTML-like syntax for – the
>     ‘base’ element? We anyway need to define somewhere what effect the
>     HTML ‘base’ element has on any SVG document fragments."
>     So what should I do here?
>     a) keep the attribute but place it in the no namespace
>     b) keep the attribute in the xml namespace and add one in the no
>     namespace with the same reference to XML base, clarifying
>     potential conflicts
>     c) deprecate the attribute and introduce the base the element as
>     in the HTML spec [3].
>     d) keep the attribute for XML elements and introduce the base the
>     element as in the HTML spec. This is what is done in the HTML 5
>     spec, it has the <base> element and the xml:base attribute is also
>     allowed, but only on XML elements [2].
>
>     I think option d) would be preferable for consistency with HTML.
>
>     For the xml:lang attribute, the definition currently references
>     XML 1.0. Should I remove the need for the namespace prefix but
>     keep the reference to the XML specification. Or should we
>     introduce the lang attribute in no namespace as in the HTML 5 spec
>     [1] and keep both?
>
>     For the xml:space attribute, it has already been deprecated in the
>     SVG spec, to be replaced by the white-space property. I don't
>     think it's necessary to remove the xml namespace for this one.
>
>     Cyril
>
>     [1]
>     http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/dom.html#the-lang-and-xml:lang-attributes
>     [2]
>     http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/dom.html#the-xml:base-attribute-(xml-only)
>     <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/dom.html#the-xml:base-attribute-%28xml-only%29>
>     <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/dom.html#the-xml:base-attribute-%28xml-only%29>
>     [3]
>     http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/document-metadata.html#the-base-element
>
>
>     -- 
>     Cyril Concolato
>     Maître de Conférences/Associate Professor
>     Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group
>     Telecom ParisTech
>     46 rue Barrault
>     75 013 Paris, France
>     http://concolato.wp.mines-telecom.fr/
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Phone: +64 3 9423700 / Mobile: +64 21 1666127
> Skype: paul.lebeau / XMPP: paul.lebeau@gmail.com 
> <mailto:paul.lebeau@gmail.com>
> Twitter: @paullebeau


-- 
Cyril Concolato
Maître de Conférences/Associate Professor
Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group
Telecom ParisTech
46 rue Barrault
75 013 Paris, France
http://concolato.wp.mines-telecom.fr/

Received on Thursday, 11 July 2013 16:42:34 UTC