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

Re: XML Namespaces 1.1

• From: Rick Yorgason <rick@firefang.com>
• To: liam@w3.org
• Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 10:17:58 -0400

On 26/05/2011 9:29 AM, Liam R E Quin wrote:
> 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.

Indeed, at Longbow Games we have our own HTML-inspired schema that 
doesn't currently use namespaces, so we'd have to find-and-replace those 
prefixes.

If we're at all typical, though, that would be the least of our worries. 
  On the few instances I've had to copy HTML into our format, it's much 
more annoying to fix up the tags where our format differs (which usually 
means adding attributes to cover our lack of CSS).  By contrast, doing 
an s/w3\.xhtml//g is a trifling matter.

Alternately, I suppose we could bind w3.xhtml to the empty namespace, 
but then I wouldn't be able to sleep with myself at night.

-Rick-

• References:
  • XML Namespaces 1.1
    • From: Rick Yorgason <rick@firefang.com>
  • Re: XML Namespaces 1.1
    • From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
  • Re: XML Namespaces 1.1
    • From: Rick Yorgason <rick@firefang.com>
  • Re: XML Namespaces 1.1
    • From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
  • Re: XML Namespaces 1.1
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@codalogic.com>
  • Re: XML Namespaces 1.1
    • From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
  • Re: XML Namespaces 1.1
    • From: Rick Yorgason <rick@firefang.com>
  • Re: XML Namespaces 1.1
    • From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>