Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel

On Mar 5, 2009, at 4:49 PM, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:

> Yes, the goal of having one code path on top of a namespace-aware  
> API is important.
> When one has a namespace-aware API, shame not to have the namespaces.
> What are the arguments against implementing xmlns: recognition in  
> *future* HTML5 parsers?
> (I can't imagine that there are a lot of people who have  
> accidentally used the string xmlns: inside attribute names in the  
> past. :)

This assumption is incorrect.

There is quite a bit of mistaken use of xmlns in text/html, and also  
use of mistaken tag and attribute names with colons. It is a  
combination of outright mistakes, sending of XHTML as text/html  
without full understanding, use of IE-specific extensions (in ways  
that would fail in other browsers) due to the way IE does namespaces  
in HTML, and generation by various tools, including Microsoft Office,  
of content that uses namespaces in ways that would likely break.

If it were not for this content legacy, then I think using xmlns to  
declare namespaces in HTML would be worth considering.

> There would still be a need for kludge code for legacy browsers, but  
> with time some applications would just propose to work with XHTML  
> and HTML in newer browsers.  (For example, things which need other  
> new features anyway). Others would keep the kludge code in forever.   
> But it would be a huge step forward toward solving this issue.

(As a side note, I think Henri has in the past pointed out serious  
issues with using QNames in content, which is what CURIEs as used by  
RDFa amount to. But to be fair, those issues are not entirely HTML- 
specific and remain flaws even in pure XML use.)


Received on Friday, 6 March 2009 01:25:27 UTC