- From: Jon Ferraiolo <jferraio@Adobe.COM>
- Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 14:09:41 -0800
- To: "Clark C. Evans" <cce@clarkevans.com>
- Cc: "Arnold Curt" <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com>, "'xml-dev@lists.xml.org'" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>, "'xsl-editors@w3.org'" <xsl-editors@w3.org>, "'www-svg@w3.org'" <www-svg@w3.org>
I agree with Clark that the best long-term strategy is to define a common <script> element that is shared across all W3C languages which allow embedded scripts. I'm not sure about the 'xml:' script prefix, however. It would seem to me that "xml:" should be reserved for things that are very fundamental XML features, whereas scripting is common but not fundamental. A W3C scripting namespace seems more appropriate to me, as in <w3cscriptingNS:script>. (usually, you would choose a shorter but less descriptive prefix.) Jon Ferraiolo SVG Editor jferraio@adobe.com At 08:47 PM 3/2/01 -0500, Clark C. Evans wrote: >On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Arnold, Curt wrote: > > XSLT 1.1, SVG 1.0 and HTML 4.01 define a <script> element, > > however their current forms are not coordinated. > >Rather than coordinate their forms, why not just have a >seperate stand-alone xml:script recommendation. This, IMHO, >would be better modulization. It would also allow scripts >to be used across XSLT, DOM, SVG, etc., without change. >And, it could allow for "script catalogues", etc. > >Clark
Received on Saturday, 3 March 2001 18:52:28 UTC