On 21/03/2007 04:10, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
FYI, section numbers are subject to change (they have done several times over the spec's development). It would be more useful if you used the section title. It will make it less confusing if they change between now and the time Hixie gets to your feedback.
Sure, no problem. Thanks for the hint.
1.4. The single fact that HTML v5 needs to use a 1999 namespace already used by earlier versions of the language indicates that namespaces are a rather bad solution to the problems they're trying to solve... Conclusion : follow that path and imagine something better.That's the W3C's fault for for putting a date in the namespace URI, instead of something more sensible like they have now done for XBL2 [1].
I never said the contrary :-)
That is not one of the problems with namespaces in general, only a problem with that URI. But we can't change the XHTML namespace without breaking backwards compatibility, so we're stuck with it.
Again, never said the contrary. Being stuck with the xhtml namespace for html 5 does not mean you cannot imagine another solution for other markup languages... </Daniel>
