- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 03:03:01 -0400
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- 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>
Henri Sivonen wrote: > 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". Consensus on what the values of localName, prefix, namespaceURI (and possibly tagUrn) should return -- that's what I would like to see resolved. Additionally, consensus on what markup is to be considered conformant would be ideal. If the end result is that some people look at the result and say that that is distributed extensibility to them and they can live with it, and others say no it is not distributed extensibility -- and they can live with it, that wouldn't bother me one bit. - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 5 October 2009 07:03:43 UTC