W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2008

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

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:35:23 +0000 (UTC)
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0807300027290.30692@hixie.dreamhostps.com>

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008, Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
> 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

Prefixes as an indirection syntax being a fundamentally bad design is 
something that has been assumed as a fundamental design decision for 
years. Unless new evidence has come up suggesting that this decision is 
flawed, reopening the issue is not a good use of our time.

Is there any new evidence? Are there any proposals that show indirection 
syntax can be designed in a manner that doesn't have the problems that 
other prefix-based proposals have had?


> I believe that the following merits serious consideration:
> 
> http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?LinkID=110272

This syntax, as well as the actual syntax that IE8 beta 1 implements 
(which to be frank is really very different from what the whitepaper 
describes), as well as the syntax supported in earlier versions of IE, and 
a number of variant syntaxes based on these ideas, have been seriously 
considered in excruciating detail already.

But I've already explained this many times before, so I don't know why 
you keep bringing this up.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 00:36:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:56 UTC