- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 22:01:32 +1000
- To: "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com>
- Cc: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
> A well designed format is one for which people can make uses and > extensions unforeseen by the creator. Putting a namespace here is > zero-cost, not putting it is just begging to look stupid down the line. Appealing to our ego's is a nice rhetorical trick, but it's better to keep the arguments on a technical level:-) > FWIW, Joost's internal widget manifest format uses a namespace, which > makes it easier to implement multiple widget formats too. > > > Using namespaces here just complicates things for authors who want > > to copy and paste lines of codes without the level of indirection > > given by namespaces (where they would have to copy the namespace > > decleration too). > > Experience shows authors are not that silly, it's just a handful of > specification writers who think that's complicated :) I'm not too phased by the namespace issue... and I don't think Anne is either. I do however support Anne's position and reasoning. However, I am inclined to put it back in. Anyone one else feel strongly about having a namespace? The namespace would be: http://ww.w3.org/ns/widgets If other people want it and think its a good idea then I am happy to put it back in the spec. Kind regards, Marcos -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2007 12:07:32 UTC