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

Re: Extensibility strategies, was: Deciding in public (Was: SVGWG SVG-in-HTML proposal)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 17:07:21 -0400
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, public-html-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF5E2EB130.5570D7FF-ON8525749B.0073348C-8525749B.007407B0@us.ibm.com>
Julian Reschke wrote on 08/04/2008 04:19:42 PM:
>
> Sam Ruby wrote:
> > Ian Hickson wrote on 08/02/2008 03:45:19 PM:
> >  >
> >  > The syntax for a self-closing element is for the element to be
> > immediately
> >  > followed by a close tag, for example, what in proprietary XML might
be
> >  > written as:
> >  >
> >  >    <foo xmlns="http://example.com/" />
> >  >
> >  > ...can be written in HTML5 as:
> >  >
> >  >    <div class="com.example.foo"></div>
> >
> > Other than the fact that I would suggest span over div, this approach
> > does meet the requirements I laid out.
> >
> > It doesn't have the benefit of field experience (in the devil you know
> > vs the devil you don't know), but it would seem to work.
>
> As a matter of fact, it does not work, as it wouldn't be able to both
> represent and disambiguate all namespace names that may occur in XHTML.

To be fair, while that clearly would have been a nice to have, that was not
one of my stated requirements.  In fact, I would have been willing to trade
off some aspects of that requirement against a solution with greater
usability.

But Ian found another loophole.  A much bigger one.  I hadn't said that
usability was a requirement.

> > Of course, the usuability of such an approach sucks, which I gather is
> > the point of the proposal.
>
> Right.
>
> BR, Julian

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 4 August 2008 22:51:22 UTC

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