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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 08:36:06 +0200
Message-ID: <4897F4D6.40508@gmx.de>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>

Ian Hickson wrote:
> ...
>>> Could you actually give an example where this could happen? I haven't 
>>> been able to find a case where an actual clash could happen, even with 
>>> a totally open TLD space.
>> As the TLD space isn't open *yet*, it's hard to provide that example.
> Pretend that the TLD space was completely open, so that you could invent 
> any random TLD you wanted.
> Could you actually give an example where people using different 
> disambiguation schemes would somehow come up with clashing names? It seems 
> like it is quite possible to design disambiguation schemes that can't be 
> confused with other disambiguation schemes and therefore can't have 
> clashes.

If Alice's disambiguation scheme is tld.sld-identifier, and Bob's is 
sld.tld-identifier, and Alice's domain name is "ab.cd", and Bob's domain 
is "cd.ab", and they both want to define "title", both will end up with


This can be avoided by mandating exactly one scheme. A URI-based scheme 
would be a candidate, and have the advantage that those are well 
understood and are used almost everywhere else (which makes 
roundtripping easy).

>>>> That being said, clashes have occurred (what does the "title" class 
>>>> name stand for?), and it's also a known problem that you get in 
>>>> trouble once you want to nest information.
>>> These problems are fixable without complicated disambiguation schemes.
>> How?
> Using different classes, defining precise behaviour, etc.

That requires central coordination.

As far as I can tell, the problems with microformats are well understood 
by now (nesting, abuse of title attribute, process only works for a few 
common formats), but it seems you prefer to ignore them.

>>> I mean that instead of sticking your extension here:
>>>    <xxxx>
>>> ...you stick it here:
>>>    <div class="xxxx">
>>> It's a different syntactic space than the language's main vocabulary. 
>>> Is that an acceptable price?
>> If it would work *reliably*, yes. I don't see how it could, as class 
>> already has different semantics.
> It has the exact semantics you want -- author-defined extension point.
> Why would it not work reliably? Could you provide an example of something 
> that would be unreliable?

It would work only reliably if a naming scheme is chosen that makes it 
impossible that different authors accidentally choose the same name for 
different purposes. To avoid that, a concrete syntax needs to be defined.

BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 06:36:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:36 UTC