On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Chaals McCathieNevile <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 10:47:22 +0200, Florian Bösch <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Michael[tm] Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> There is no conceivable conformance checker that's going to allow the >>> use of completely arbitrary tag names. It doesn't matter what formalism >>> it uses. >>> To allow custom tag names and still be able to check the conformance of >>> normal tag names, the only possibility is to limit the custom tag names >>> to some recognized prefix -- e.g., x-fancyButton or whatever. >>> >> >> <x:fancy-button> >> > > Yes, XML has a way to make this work. But the people who don't get > namespaces (a huge proportion of those publishing content or build the > content content generation tools that were used in the last decade *on the > public web*) have convinced us* that this is not an option for HTML. > > On the other hand, a log of programming languages manage to run a compiler > that recognises arbitrary elements based on a grammar and an "import" > declaration of some kind. > > In other words, they use a simplistic namespace mechanism (without the > collision-control). > > *For some definition of us. For those who have worked happily with > namespaces over the last decade, writing HTML5 as XHTML is a reasonable > option, if the browsers don't scrap their XML capability. > I'm not a fan of XML or anything. But if you want to do namespacing it'd be worth thinking about to do it properly before coming up with another hodgepodge prefixing solution.
