Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Aug 11, 2005, at 20:29, Robin Berjon wrote: > Dave Pawson wrote: >> http://copia.ogbuji.net/blog/2005/08/10#Today_s_XM > Mandatory DTD can be up for discussion given how it's been used in the > past for quirks mode detection and the such, but for sure if there's > any way to do without it, I sure won't mind. I consider DTDs harmful in the browser context in particular, because none of the well-known browsers that support XHTML 1.x actually process the real DTDs, processing the DTD would make no sense from the performance point of view, and pretending that DTD-based infoset augmentation happens when the DTD is not really processed is even worse than DTD-based infoset augmentation. And the whole point why the XML spec allows DTDs not to be processed is that the writers of the spec considered DTD processing incompatible with the way browsers work. Of course, the doctype sniffing argument is and should be totally moot when it comes to XHTML 2.0. >> I'm with Uche on this one. > > As am I, except not entirely for the part where he talks about > changing the namespace. Knowing when to change a namespace is a tough > call and generally an unsolved problem, and calling it inconsistent is > to overlook a few details. From XHTML 1.x to XHTML 2.0 there is a lot of stuff that remains relatively the same when considering the local element names without the namespace. Changing the namespace is like running Rot13 on those element names. Running Rot13 on element names like that is impractical and uncool, because it makes code reuse in UAs more difficult and prevents incremental adoption of new features in authoring. I think taking the good ideas from XHTML 2.0 (to the extent they exist) and backporting them to the XHTML 1.x namespace makes much more sense in the context of the Web, IMO. That's one of the things that WHAT WG is doing with the XHTML flavor of HTML5. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@i... http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
|
