RE: [xml-dev] What is the rule for parsing XML in a namespace inside HTML?

["Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>]

I can speculate about why it was designed that way, but it's still icky
IMO.  Two things:

1) I would prefer the "stat" to be declared like a regular XMLNS
2) A PI with a name like ?Mapping is a bit grandiose.  Like nobody else
would ever want that name?  It should be scoped IMO. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:len.bullard@intergraph.com] 
> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 7:26 AM
> To: Joshua Allen
> Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] What is the rule for parsing XML in a 
> namespace inside HTML?
> 
> All good.  How about this:
> 
> <?Mapping XmlNamespace="stat" ClrNamespace="WiseOwl.Statistics"
>                               
> Assembly="WiseOwl.Statistics.Library" ?> <Window 
> xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/2003/xaml"; Visible="true">
>     <SimpleText Foreground="DarkRed" FontSize="14">Hello 
> World!</SimpleText>
>     <stat:PoissonDeviate Mean="5.0" />
> </Window>
> 
> I would still expect a namespace declaration for the stat namespace. 
> I've no objection to the mapping PI given that it has to tie 
> together three pieces of information.  I realize that the 
> colon isn't doing that much, but again, expectations are set. 
>  Care to comment on the implications of the above with 
> respect to interoperability (yes, the example is a user 
> extension, so interoperability is dicey at best).
> 
> len
> 
> 
> 
> From: Joshua Allen [mailto:joshuaa@microsoft.com]
> 
> ... going with whatever works best for
> the user and can get consensus among browser vendors, rather 
> than doing user-hostile things in the name of purity to some 
> random irrelevant spec.  In fact, the Hyatt discussion has 
> morphed in a sense into a discussion about namespaces in HTML 
> [1], and the remarkable thing is that *none* of these people 
> are suggesting the facist route of "force the whole world to 
> use XHTML and only then will it work!".  That's a good sign, IMO.
>