[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: RFP: Namespace URI for HTML

• From: Marc.McDonald@D...
• To: xml-dev@i..., schnitz@o...
• Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 15:11:45 -0700

But an HTML processor is supposed to accept a well-formed document and
gracefully ignore unknown elements (actually treat them as text). So, what
happens when your cellphone microbrowser gets a frameset document instead of
a strict document? Does it just put up an error box and show nothing? How
does a non-validating parser ensure a document is frameset or strict?

Namespaces do not define the set of valid names, they only allow
differentiation. Without validation there is no enforcement that a document
is strict, frameset or transitional. Since the namespace declaration has no
enforced meaning, why bother with it? 

The only reason I've seen presented is fragments. BUT, there is a fragments
working group, why not let them find a general solution to the problem? Why
are you usurping their authority?


Marc B. McDonald
Principal Software Scientist

Design Intelligence, Inc.
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 1500
Seattle, WA  98101
marc.mcdonald@d...
Ph: 206.343-7797
Fax: 206.343.7750

http://www.design-intelligence.com



> ----------
> From: 	Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer[SMTP:schnitz@o...]
> Sent: 	Thursday, September 09, 1999 10:10 AM
> To: 	xml-dev@i...
> Cc: 	David Brownell; abcoates@T...
> Subject: 	Re: RFP: Namespace URI for HTML
> 
> > > I'm very surprised that the list does not include the current
> > > approach taken by the HTML WG. This poll seems to suggest that
> > > one namespace for every flavor of XHTML is the only right choice. I
> > > agree with Tony and others who consider 3 namespaces as a
> > > possible solution.
> > 
> > I think a lot of folk are still waiting to hear a good reason
> > why more than one is needed ... given that the vocabulary (HTML)
> > is distinct from the rules (transitional/strict/frameset) that
> > may be used to assemble them, both now and in the future.
> 
> Okay - here we go.
> 
> The namespaces concept, at least in the view-point of some 
> individuals, is a very abstract concept. The namespace is a 
> collection of names, regardless of document type. 
> 
> Given that theory, we could think of the HTML vocabulary as a 
> single namespace. Every flavor or variant of XHTML belongs to the 
> single XHTML namespace.
> 
> Namespaces are also used for identification, especially, the value 
> of the xmlns attribute is to indicate to which namespace this 
> document instance, fragment or element belongs.
> 
> If there is no indication of the flavor of XHTML, we come out with 
> the following scenario:
> 
> Strict, Transitional and Frameset may all have the same <p> and 
> the same <h1>, but that alone does not imply that it is all the 
> same thing. In fact there are substantial differences between these 
> three variants.
> 
> An application processing a specific XHTML document instance 
> has no indication to which kind of XHTML this document instance 
> belongs.
> 
> Why is this important? The major HTML browsers don't care, they 
> can process any HTML regardless of type. This will change in the 
> future. In fact, we have an array of specialized user agents coming 
> up. If we talk about the future of HTML, keep in mind that we will 
> see HTML in many different environments. XHTML is not designed 
> to make life better for heavy user agents, moreover, XHTML is the 
> key for the web to rapidly expand to other devices than the desktop 
> PC.
> 
> A heavy user agent might not care, but for a microbrowser in a cell 
> phone, there is a huge difference between strict and frameset.
> 
> Why not introduce a custom "variant indentification system" for 
> XHTML? Possible solution: re-introduce the version attribute on the 
> HTML root element specifying the XHTML variant. The problem here 
> are fragments. I want to include a piece of XHTML in a document 
> instance other than XHTML. Again, for many user agents, there is 
> big difference between allowing a <frameset> to be included 
> anywhere in an XML document instance or just basic, strict XHTML 
> that is much cleaner and requires less resources and 
> implementation costs. The version attribute on the HTML root 
> element is not there when any xhtml element is included 
> somewhere in another XML document instance, the only thing we 
> have for identification is the value of the xmlns attribute.
> 
> Unfortunately, I must stop here. There are more reasons why the 
> HTML WG has chosen 3 namespaces. I'll be happy to continue 
> this conversation later.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Stack Overflow AG
> Phone: +49-89-767363-70
> 
> xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
> Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on
> CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
> To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
> (un)subscribe xml-dev
> To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following
> message;
> subscribe xml-dev-digest
> List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
> 

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: RFP: Namespace URI for HTML
    • From: "Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer" <schnitz@o...>

• Prev by Date: RE: MSXML for Java Questions
• Next by Date: Re: RFP: Namespace URI for HTML
• Previous by thread: Re: RFP: Namespace URI for HTML
• Next by thread: RE: RFP: Namespace URI for HTML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread