3 ms·
just feels backwards to me. the <html:* > stuff seems like it should all be under the default html namespace and assumed. where as the other stuff may be better
by jayrox 12y ago
just feels backwards to me. the <html:* > stuff seems like it should all be under the default html namespace and assumed. where as the other stuff may be better suited to be namespaced.
just seems like a waste adding "html:" to all of the root/core elements.
- madoublet 12y agoI thought it was a joke after I saw <html:html>.
- ape4 12y agoIf that happened browsers would have to make "html:" optional. So authors could get away without using it.
- jayrox 12y agoand at that point a complete waste of being in the spec to start with.
- xienze 12y agoErr, no. XML allows you to set the root namespace for an element so it and child elements have an assumed namespace. The point of using namespaces is to allow embedding different document/element types in the same document.