Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 18:33:13 +0200
> At 01:24 AM 9/10/99 +0200, Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer wrote:
> >HTML is a damn useful vocabulary after all. Designing a completely
> >new XML language is often the only way. But sometimes, a new
> >application is rather a mixture of the features that HTML (or a
> >subset of HTML) already provides together with entirely new
> >features. In this case, one would re-use a subset of HTML in a new
> >XML language, forming a new XHTML family member.
> Exactly. I suspect that 100% of the readers of this list agree 100%
> with this contention. In fact, this is already happening - people
> are stealing chunks of HTML tags in other XML languages. Good design,
I absolutely agree. And that is what the Modularization of XHTML is
all about. Instead of randomly stealing chunks from HTML, there is
now a repository of XHTML modules. This ensures that everyone
steals the image tag in the same way. There is great value in such
a thing. Think of Modularization of XHTML as the "XHTML
> But, if I want, in my own XML language, to use an HTML table here and
> an HTML hyperlink there, it seems to me the most natural thing in
> the world to do this:
> <myRootElement xmlns:html="the-namespace-URI-for-HTML">
> <myTag> ...
> <myOtherTag> ...
> <html:a href="adsafa;dfs">sfasafsdj</html:a>
> <yetAnotherTagOfMine> ...
Sure. You can do that. No question.
> why on earth would I want different namespaces for all these different
> HTML modules? There is no possibility of collisions since they're
> all from HTML. -Tim
Each module does not define its own namespace. Modularization
itself has nothing to do with namespaces. It is just XHTML sliced
into pieces. You can take some or all of the pieces, create your
own pieces and come out with a new XHTML variant, XHTML family
member or just a new XML language using some stuff from XHTML.
How this interacts with namespaces must be decided regarding the
context, there is no default way. Basically, it depends on to which
degree your own language is intervoven with the XHTML modules.
Your example above is perfectly fine and marks one end of the
spectrum. The other end would be, for instance, XHTML being the
root and your additional modules are some new leaves. You're
taking XHTML as it is and add some new elements that are useful
for a specific domain. Then the set of new elements could well be a
namespace of its own and the XHTML part belongs to the XHTML
namespace. But if the set of new elements only make sense to be
used together with XHTML and the result of the combination of both
is something quite different from the standard XHTML, then it
should be possible that XHTML-MyML is an entirely new
namespace including both the XHTML part and the MyML part -
perhaps operating in a closed environment.
Stack Overflow AG
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)