Re: [xml-dev] XML Namespaces 1.1

[Rick Yorgason <rick@firefang.com>]

On 25/05/2011 8:26 PM, Liam R E Quin wrote:
> Note that if you start using names like com.foo, you lose the use case
> of copying HTML fragments from (say) RSS/Atom into HTML, where typically
> you want the same local-name to be copied, but the namespaces are
> actually (strictly speaking) different.

You mean something like this?:

<summary type="xhtml">
    <w3.xhtml:div>
       This is <b>XHTML</b> content.
    </div>
</summary>

So you're talking about copying the <w3.xhtml:div> element and pasting 
it into a different XHTML file, and finding that the prefix is now 
redundant, right?

But is that really worse than any of these?

In December 2005, The Atom Syndication Format (RFC4287) wrote:
>    ...
>    <summary type="xhtml">
>       <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>
>          This is <b>XHTML</b> content.
>       </div>
>    </summary>
>    ...
>    <summary type="xhtml">
>       <xhtml:div xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>
>          This is <xhtml:b>XHTML</xhtml:b> content.
>       </xhtml:div>
>    </summary>
>    ...
>
>    The following example assumes that the XHTML namespace has been bound
>    to the "xh" prefix earlier in the document:
>
>    ...
>    <summary type="xhtml">
>       <xh:div>
>          This is <xh:b>XHTML</xh:b> content.
>       </xh:div>
>    </summary>
>    ...

All cases save the last one would work perfectly fine when pasted into 
an XHTML doc using either namespace model, they just become a little 
redundant.  The last one would remain exactly as invalid as it always 
was, unless you define that prefix in your new document.

Am I missing the problem?

-Rick-