[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XML Namespaces 1.1
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] |
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|