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

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

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:13:47 +0200
To: "Shelley Powers" <shelley.just@gmail.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>
Message-ID: <op.u11qw9ar64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:03:33 +0200, Shelley Powers  
<shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I wasn't aware that the concept of distributed extensibility or  
decentralized extensibility came with a particular syntax. I'm not  
convinced that authors will have trouble with long identifiers. I actually  
think identifiers with a level of indirection will be more difficult to  
handle.


> 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.

For the widgets scenario one could just use data-* attributes. Also, a lot  
of added complexity is not necessarily superior in my book.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 12:14:25 UTC

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