- From: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:56:29 +0200
- To: "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:06 AM, Chris Wilson wrote: > > I just realized I'd never sent my opinion about extensibility in HTML. > > In short, I think extensibility is a very good idea, with some parameters > around it. Particularly as I look at the challenges of sanely incorporating > vocabularies such as SVG and MathML, and then what we would need > to do when the next vocabulary comes along, it would seem to be a > necessity (or we're just encouraging people to roll their own). I think it's > a poor language that doesn't think about its own extensibility, particularly > when its own vocabulary already approaches "prohibitively large". Chris, is there a writeup somewhere about IE's parsing rules regarding "foreign markup"? (by that I mean: what does trigger "foreign language" parsing rules (where "/>" signals a void element), and wrt "ill formed" markup). See also: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Apr/0173.html and other mails in the thread. -- Thomas Broyer
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2008 07:57:05 UTC