Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On 08/06/2009 10:21 AM, Michael Kay wrote:
>> we can simplify our lives by saying "namespaces in HTML are
>> only ever needed for non-standard customized fragments."
>>
>> In other words, if you want to put in SVG into an HTML
>> document, there are not name clashes (in context) so there is
>> no purpose served by namespaces.
>> All the HTML committee needs to do is say something like
>>
>> "These are the standard vocabularies: HTML, SVG, RDF, etc
>> etc, if you find an element belonging to them, that starts a
>> new branch."
>>
>
> Another way to achieve this goal is to allow the designer of an XML
> vocabulary (=a set of namespaces) to define
>
> (a) a list of predeclared namespace prefixes for that vocabulary
>
> (b) a list of local names that are known to be in each of those namespaces
>
> When invoking an XML parser, the user should be able to reference this
> "vocabulary definition", and the XML parser should use it to resolve (a) any
> undeclared namespace prefixes, and (b) any unprefixed local names. An "nnML
> parser" is then an XML parser with built-in knowledge of the nnML vocabulary
> definition.
So for docbook you'd have an author include all 300+ namespaced elements
Mike?
Fine if Norm had them somewhere on the net I could reference them,
but simply not practical to inline them in the document surely?
Not even for (x)html with ns's?
regards
regards
--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
