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: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 00:32:11 -0400
To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <08b001c8f846$8f24c550$ad6e4ff0$@com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 3:13 AM
> To: Justin James
> Cc: 'Ian Hickson'; 'HTML WG'
> Subject: Re: Extensibility strategies, was: Deciding in public (Was:
> SVGWG SVG-in-HTML proposal)
> 
> Justin James wrote:
> > ...
> >>> * 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?
> >
> > I might be confused here, so I'll give you an example of what I am
> thinking
> > of.
> >
> > A page at abc.com has a link to a stylesheet at xyz.net. Let's say
> that the
> > stylesheet at xyz.net contains the follow class definitions:
> >
> > * http://www.xyz.net/datetime
> > * http://www.abc.com/price
> > * http://www.yahoo.com/classes/WidgetLibraryContainer //For use in
> wrapping
> > around a Yahoo! widget
> >
> > So where are the violations of this principle? Is the stylesheet
> allowed to
> > contain classes for "abc.com" only when it is used in HTML at
> abc.com? Is it
> 
> Yes. The same way an XSLT stylesheet served from greenbytes.de can use
> names in XHTML and XSLT namespaces (served from w3.org).

This sounds sensible.

> > an error for a document at abc.com to use one of the xyz.net classes?
> Are
> > both the document and the stylesheet wrong by using the reference to
> > yahoo.com?
> 
> No.
> 
> How did you get that impression?

I didn't really have that impression, but it was something that I didn't
think I had a clear understanding of.

> To *mint* new names, you should have authority over the URIs you use
> (by
> owning, by consensus, by delegation whatever). To *use* them, you
> don't.
>
> After all, the whole point is that new names can be minted which would
> have the same meaning to both producers and consumers.

Excellent, this is exactly what I would hope for. :)
 
Thanks again!

J.Ja
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2008 04:33:23 UTC

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