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 07:28:21 -0500
Message-ID: <643cc0270910190528r21e0a888lc3841ff4ff188407@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, 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 7:18 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:08:04 +0200, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 6:57 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I haven't seen a need for @namespace at all really, besides user agent
>>> style sheets and perhaps the somewhat normative style sheets in the HTML5
>>> specification. As far as I'm concerned CSS would have been much better
>>> off without support for namespaces. (I fixed the specification mostly
>>> because it is a somewhat legacy thing for which it seemed easier to get
>>> interoperability than remove support for it entirely everywhere. In
>>> retrospect this may have been a bad choice, but you have to pick your
>>> battles.)
>>
>> I have, when I cut and paste an SVG file into one of my sites. Most
>> have Creative Commons licenses recorded using namespaces. Some have
>> other metadata. All are given using namespaces.
>
> And all are always hidden the way SVG is defined, so not relevant to CSS.
> And even if, the context would probably be enough in most cases.
>

I'm sorry, I didn't know this discussion was specific to CSS.
Sometimes it's difficult to follow these longer threads.

I thought you stated you didn't need namespaces, and I responded with,
but I do.

>
>> And I'm sure I'll have other uses in the future, too. I'm no so
>> sanguine about the ability of this group to read the needs of the
>> future, to feel comfortable that we can meet all of these needs when
>> the HTML5 spec is released. Decentralized extensibility is less for
>> current needs, and more for the unknown future.
>
> Designing for the unknown future sounds like a waste of time and effort to
> me. I forward compatibility is important, but adding a ton of complexity for
> a need that may emerge in the future seems unsound.
>

I read Tony's proposal. I didn't see a ton of complexity, especially
considering that namespaces are already supported in the XHTML
serialization of HTML5. In fact, it seems to me trying to come up with
anything but namespaces is adding to the complexity of the HTML5
specification.

Actually, I thought we were designing for a known future need.

>
>> But regardless of future needs, I need it now. Anyone using SVG inline
>> in HTML will need it now.
>
> There's not a lot of overlap in element names and there's always an ancestor
> you can bounce of on so I do not think this is true.
>

Can you elaborate on your response? I'm not sure what you're saying here.

>
> --
> Anne van Kesteren
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
>

Shelley
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 12:28:56 UTC

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