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

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:08:31 -0400
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, public-html-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF1EBB10D5.32A48DF7-ON85257496.003C1254-85257496.003D34A6@us.ibm.com>
public-html-request@w3.org wrote on 07/29/2008 08:35:23 PM:
>
> 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.

The first sentence, I understand.  The second sentence characterizes the
same assumption as a decision.

> 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.

Perhaps it is because (and this is from your later reply to Jeff[1]):

> > 1) As one person who has missed this - can you please send me a link to

> > a discussion thread or document where these syntaces were discussed in
> > excruciating detail?
>
> I do not believe that most of the research was documented. Most of it
> happens while experimenting with interactive tools like the Live DOM
> Viewer (and in the case of IE8's namespace parsing stuff, Philip's
awesome
> "Zombie DOM Viewer" too), or chatting on IRC, or while I'm thinking about

> the subject in the shower.

As an outside observer, what I observe is that somehow assumptions become
crystalized into decisions, at times
with little or no visibility being provided into the process.

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jul/0387.html
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 12:23:17 UTC

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