Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] What is the rule for parsing XML in a namespace inside HTML?
- From: "Joshua Allen" <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:53:40 -0700
- Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Thread-index: AcRtnFDFk6ChWTpJRaW8H8kwg3UH2AALTq5Q
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] What is the rule for parsing XML in a namespace inside HTML?
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:email@example.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 7:26 AM
> To: Joshua Allen
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.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
> <stat:PoissonDeviate Mean="5.0" />
> 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).
> From: Joshua Allen [mailto:email@example.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
> , 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.