> Seem not convinced? HTMLserializer that generates wrong output does not > convince the programmer? I mean, I can understand, if there is nobody > who has time or the capabilities to solve this bug, but not beeing > convinced sounds a little strange to me. >
Don't tell me, tell the xalan babes:
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19933
And read that last comment: even the W3C seems to think that HTML documents should contain the namespaces.
<quote-from-wiki>
So... what I ended up doing was extending the HTMLSerializer (or whatever serializer you're using for your pipelines), and overriding the startPrefixMapping and endPrefixMapping methods to do nothing, effectively removing all namespaces from my HTML. This also had the added benefit of having no performance penalties (and theoretically, a ever-so-slight speedup since we no longer process namespaces in our serializer).
</quote-from-wiki>
I have done exactly this before -- does this still work from a purely technical perspective? If so, why wouldn't we just define an NoNsHTMLSerializer which extends HTMLSerializer and overrides
just those two methods? Then, it's a user decision whether these namespaces belong
in real-world html.
Geoff Howard
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
