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 16:33:26 +0200
Message-ID: <489864B6.3080401@gmx.de>
To: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
CC: 'Ian Hickson' <ian@hixie.ch>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>

Justin James wrote:
> ...
> If the URI/URN (or whatever UR*) class names are not being de-referenced,
> then who *cares* if there could be a clash somewhere? It is irrelevant, so
> long as the CSS tree for the current document does not have any clashes. And
> if it were, who cares? Because CSS handles multiple definitions just fine,
> the one "closer" to the tag (externally defined, then internally defined,
> then inline style) overrides indentical attributes while allowing
> non-identical attributes to inherit up.
> 
> So I really am not sure why you guys are so worried about clashing class
> names, it seems like a non-problem to me. Am I missing something?
> ...

I was responding to the proposal of using class names as extension 
points, putting semantics into the document (as a workaround for HTML's 
missing extensibility).

In that case, the class name itself provides information (and its use in 
CSS is irrelevant). So a potential collision of names would confuse the 
recipient, who's expected to extract information out of the presence of 
the class name.

>> - the spec to give rules for the formats of these names, so clashes are
>> avoided (if you use a URI, use one you have authority over), and
> 
> This concept of mandating that the HTML author have "authority" over a
> URI/URN that they are using as a class name is not working for me. This is
> the second time that you've mentioned it, but I really do not understand:
> 
> * How do you want to define "having authority over"?

For resolvable URIs: the ability to put content there. For 
non-resolvable URIs it's harder to define and depends on the scheme.

> * How do you handle someone importing a CSS stylesheet from a URI that they
> do *not* "have authority over*, such as is the case when using a public
> widget library?

How is that a problem?

> Sorry to just jump into the middle of this conversation like this...

BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 14:34:13 UTC

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