Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On 25/05/2011 8:26 PM, Liam R E Quin wrote:
> Note that if you start using names like com.foo, you lose the use case
> of copying HTML fragments from (say) RSS/Atom into HTML, where typically
> you want the same local-name to be copied, but the namespaces are
> actually (strictly speaking) different.
You mean something like this?:
<summary type="xhtml">
<w3.xhtml:div>
This is <b>XHTML</b> content.
</div>
</summary>
So you're talking about copying the <w3.xhtml:div> element and pasting
it into a different XHTML file, and finding that the prefix is now
redundant, right?
But is that really worse than any of these?
In December 2005, The Atom Syndication Format (RFC4287) wrote:
> ...
> <summary type="xhtml">
> <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
> This is <b>XHTML</b> content.
> </div>
> </summary>
> ...
> <summary type="xhtml">
> <xhtml:div xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
> This is <xhtml:b>XHTML</xhtml:b> content.
> </xhtml:div>
> </summary>
> ...
>
> The following example assumes that the XHTML namespace has been bound
> to the "xh" prefix earlier in the document:
>
> ...
> <summary type="xhtml">
> <xh:div>
> This is <xh:b>XHTML</xh:b> content.
> </xh:div>
> </summary>
> ...
All cases save the last one would work perfectly fine when pasted into
an XHTML doc using either namespace model, they just become a little
redundant. The last one would remain exactly as invalid as it always
was, unless you define that prefix in your new document.
Am I missing the problem?
-Rick-
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
