W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > August 2007

Re: widget namespace

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 22:01:32 +1000
Message-ID: <b21a10670708280501m24a27862pe1d4fc195806cda4@mail.gmail.com>
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:


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 Caceres
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2007 12:07:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:50:07 UTC