W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2008

Re: Deciding in public (Was: SVGWG SVG-in-HTML proposal)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 14:37:24 -0400
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFBAC39F0D.EC8182F5-ON85257498.0065CB13-85257498.00664D22@us.ibm.com>

Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote on 08/01/2008 02:27:03 PM:
>
[snip]
>
> As to the "fundamental assumptions" argument that it's not cost-effective
> to revisit the utility of namespaces and such in HTML... that this
> was documented as far back as the 2004 position paper by Opera and
Mozilla,
>   http://www.w3.org/2004/04/webapps-cdf-ws/papers/opera.html
> a big part of the social process of taking on the text of the HTML 5
> specification was to write many of the relevant design principles
> in the context of this W3C working group
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/
>
[snip]
>
> Opera and Mozilla are pretty clearly
> on record against decentralized extensibility.

The only previous mention of Mozilla that I see in your note is in the
paragraph I excerpted above.  It cites a paper that is against the overuse
of namespaces.  Is this the basis of your assertion that Mozilla is clearly
on record against decentralized extensibility?

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 1 August 2008 18:39:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:57 UTC