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

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:12:22 -0700
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, 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: <29E1C2CB-6B96-483E-A398-8B4487D731F9@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Oct 5, 2009, at 4:43 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> ...
>> So far from the replies of others I see:
>> - No one has stated they can't live with HTML5's current parsing  
>> for elements and attributes with colons in the name (or provided  
>> rationale for feeling that way).
>> - No one has shown evidence for why the compatibility risk of  
>> Microsoft's proposal is low (other than the invalid argument in the  
>> proposal itself).
>> - No one has made any new proposals that address the compatibility  
>> concerns but still provide some kind of benefit.
>> ...
>
> I'm not going to make one of these statements, because I don't have  
> sufficient information.
>
> What I can say is that I think that it's totally not clear that  
> changes to the current spec are impossible. Furthermore, I believe  
> that any kind of change that aligns the text/html and the  
> application/xml syntax more closely would be a win.

I would not totally rule out changes to parsing either. But I can only  
review the proposals actually put forward.

> > ...
>> Thus, at this point, I'm not seeing a real dispute. For there to be  
>> a real dispute, I think one of the types of replies I mentioned  
>> above would have to happen. Is anyone willing to do that? If not, I  
>> will tend to assume that we do in fact have consensus.
> > ...
>
> There may be rough consensus, but it certainly doesn't include me.

In the W3C, consensus is lack of (strong, widespread) objection. Are  
you prepared to object to what is in the spec today, and back that  
with a technical argument?

> Also, I assume it doesn't include Microsoft, otherwise they wouldn't  
> have made a proposal for a change.

I am prepared to assume that, if they state an objection to what is in  
the HTML5 spec. I am not prepared to assume that solely based on a  
proposal made to "seed a discussion".

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Monday, 5 October 2009 12:12:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:50 GMT