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

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

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 07:03:33 -0500
Message-ID: <643cc0270910190503p6fa7536es8aceb59979304d62@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 6:50 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:45:25 +0200, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> The use of class names is moot, because they don't provide a process
>> whereby we can ensure that there are no name clashes with class names.
>> There is nothing decentralized, or distributed when it comes to the
>> use of class names. I think we're heading off on a tangent in this
>> discussion.
>
> Class names can be a URI (and are therefore unique enough as far as I can
> tell) and for the case of widgets implemented in JavaScript it does not seem
> that much more complexity is needed really.
>
>
> --
> Anne van Kesteren
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
>

Anne, but then don't we have the use of URIs with namespaces? The only
difference is we specify the URI in one place and make a small, easy
to use alias for use elsewhere. If anything forcing people to repeat
an entire URI with each class name...that could add up, quickly and
significantly.

And that doesn't account for the need to extend HTML with elements.
Class names could possibly work as attributes, but not as elements.
With namespaces we can create both elements and attributes. A superior
option.

Shelley
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 12:04:05 GMT

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