- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 06:55:54 -0700
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com>, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org>
On Oct 3, 2009, at 6:27 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> On Oct 3, 2009, at 5:28 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: >>> Statements that I feel people can all agree to: >>> >>> 1) People (as in users and customers) have, do, and will continue >>> to use "xmlns:" syntax in HTML, and have, do, and will continue to >>> build tools that solve their perceived use cases based on this >>> syntax. >> What's our goal for what we're calling "Decentralized >> extensibility"? Is it to provide *any* form of extensibility that >> doesn't require centralized coordination? Or is it to provide a >> syntax that uses prefixes, colons as a separator, indirect prefix >> binding, URIs as namespace identifiers, and xmlns attributes to >> declare prefixes? >> I get the sense that, for many people, only a solution that looks >> like Namespaces in XML will satisfy. >> If that is indeed the case, should we rename this issue from >> "Decentralized extensibility" to "XML-style namespace syntax"? > > At the present time, I don't care what the issue is called, but I > don't see consensus on what the values of localName, prefix, > namespaceURI (and possibly tagUrn) should return, and that's what I > would like to see resolved. Do you think we can come to consensus on those questions without having consensus on the bigger picture (i.e. should XML-like namespaces be supported at all?) I would guess nearly everyone's answers to those questions will be determined by their opinions about XML-like namespaces. Regards, Maciej
Received on Saturday, 3 October 2009 13:56:27 UTC