Re: SVGWG SVG-in-HTML proposal (Was: ISSUE-41: Decentralized extensibility)

Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote on 07/29/2008 04:07:19 PM:
>
> > My larger point is that there is a spectrum between the full-on bells
> > and whistles approach to XML namespaces that was explored and rejected
a
> > half a decade ago and a no-namespaces, no-how, under no circumstances
> > approach to namespaces that was present in HTML5 a mere few months ago.

> > And exploring the solution space for the potential of small movements
> > along that spectrum should not require "radical new evidence".
>
> The specific issue that I said required "radical new evidence" was the
> assumption that namespace prefixes acting as indirection syntax for
> namespaces was a bad design. That's pretty much unrelated to the rest of
> what you are talking about. So I believe you are actually arguing at
> cross-purposes here.

It is my belief that discussion of namespace prefixes as an indirection
syntax in what possibly might be a very limited and constrained scope
should not only be allowed to proceed but also encouraged; this despite the
fact that a rather small subset of the current working group explored and
rejected a much more expanded proposal many years ago.

> If new proposals come forth (such as the SVGWG's), then I will make sure
> to study them carefully too.

I believe that the following merits serious consideration:

http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?LinkID=110272

- Sam Ruby