- From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:26:42 +0100
- To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Aryeh Gregor wrote: >> In this case I don't see how this proposal enables distributed >> extensibility (possibly that is not a design goal but I somewhat assume it >> is). > > I don't see how it doesn't. If the browser supports your extension, > it will have to add hardcoded support to actually do whatever the > extension requires. At that point it can also add hardcoded parsing > support. The only change would be if there's a naming conflict: then > authors would be required to explicitly disambiguate it somehow (exact > format TBD). The advantage for decentralized extensibility is that > there's a way to handle such naming conflicts. If a browser happened > to know in advance that it didn't support any two languages that > conflicted, it could safely ignore all disambiguation mechanisms. I thought "decentralised extensibility" with the case that the browser didn't support what you were trying to for whatever reason. I don't see how the proposal helps at all in that case.
Received on Monday, 9 November 2009 10:36:32 UTC