Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 00:03 -0400, Rick Yorgason wrote: > 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? Or rather, that you now need it to be some _other_ prefix, for use with vocabularies that use HTML-inspired element names but not in an HTML namespace. Which seems fairly common, and perfectly legitimate to me. It's a very minor point though I think. Atom (as you noted in your post) used a different design and isn't so likely to have the issue. Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
