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

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

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:50:16 -0500
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1217616616.6785.495.camel@pav.lan>

On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 14:37 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
> 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?

Yes, along with arguments from Henri Sivonen, most
recently
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Aug/0019.html

It's a bit of a risk to assume that Henri speaks for Mozilla
in this case... I'd be more than happy to hear from,
for example, Dave Baron whether I have correctly inferred
Mozilla's position.


p.s. I think I'm headed out for the afternoon.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 1 August 2008 18:49:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:21 GMT