W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2009

Re: ISSUE-41/ACTION-97 decentralized-extensibility

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 09:51:01 +0300
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, 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>
Message-Id: <FFE47C79-FD36-45CB-9DA5-31C7EA8D2C36@iki.fi>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
On Oct 3, 2009, at 16:27, Sam Ruby wrote:

> 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.

I think you are jumping ahead of things. We don't yet have consensus  
on what problems to solve. We don't have consensus on whether  
"decentralized extensibility" is the right way to solve those  
problems. And we don't have consensus on whether Microsoft's proposal  
(even on the high level) is the right kind of "decentralized  
extensibility" for solving the problems.

I think it would make the situation clearer if you could state what  
problems you want solved, why you believe the HTML WG should solve  
those problems, what "decentralized extensibility" is (so the WG can  
recognize whether alternative proposals constitute "decentralized  
extensibility"), why you believe "decentralized extensibility" is the  
right way to solve the problems and why you believe Microsoft's  
proposal is the right kind of "decentralized extensibility".

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 5 October 2009 06:51:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:08 UTC