why distinctions within XHTML?
simonstl at simonstl.com
Mon Aug 30 17:49:55 BST 1999
At 11:38 AM 8/30/99 -0400, Ann Navarro wrote:
>At 11:18 AM 8/30/99 -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>>It seems like DOCTYPE and the three DTDs should handle this without any
>>problem. I can't figure out why you'd want to bring namespaces into this.
>>I could write an editor that recognized the namespace and did processing
>>based on the namespace, but I think DOCTYPE would be simpler. I don't
>>think namespaces have to do this work.
>Well, that really points out a weakness in namespaces, doesn't it?
>Everything must now have a namespace if it's to be compliant in XML-land.
>Therefore XHTML has to have (a) namespace(s).
>Boom. We have to deal with them.
I'm glad that XHTML is trying to use namespaces. I don't think this
justifies the move to three namespaces, however.
>>So do I - but I don't think this requires namespaces.
>Me neither, but apparently they make the world go around these days.
I didn't think we were discussing fashion here - this doesn't seem like
enough justification to use namespaces in this way.
>XHTML 1.0 is the very first step, taking the 3 versions we had in HTML 4.0
>and transforming them into the XML world.
That's fine and good and conservative, however ridiculous I may find three
versions overall. That doesn't mean we have to compound the existence of
three different DTDs with three different namespaces.
>Nothing in this says that work immediately after XHTML 1.0 will have all
XML: A Primer (2nd Ed - September)
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Sharing Bandwidth / Cookies
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
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 at ic.ac.uk the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev