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

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:58:03 -0400
Message-ID: <4AE0D56B.6040309@intertwingly.net>
To: Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com>
CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Tony Ross wrote:
> Given some of the comments in this thread, I'd like to step back and
> try to get consensus on the core problem. Specifically I want to know
> whether or not the group feels providing some sort of a solution for
> decentralized extensibility, in particular decentralized
> extensibility of markup, is important.
> 
> In short, should HTML 5 provide an explicit means for others to
> define custom elements and attributes within HTML markup?

Related reading:

   http://tinyurl.com/ylnszfe

> Note that supporting decentralized markup extensibility does not
> necessarily mean you feel XML Namespaces are the appropriate
> solution. Other ideas have been shared and there are certainly many
> possible solutions, each with their own pros and cons. For the moment
> let's put these discussions aside. If we cannot agree on the problem,
> then debating the technical details of a potential solution is
> pointless.

I actually see this in reverse.  A counter-example would be:

   http://tinyurl.com/yjsaxvv

I personally don't believe we can, or need to, come to consensus on 
whether <b> and <i> are presentational or not; instead we can answer a 
much simpler question: can you live with <b> being considered conforming?

In this case (issue-41/action-97), the simpler questions are:

1) Can everybody live with the parsing rules that are specified in the 
current HTML5 draft?  (If not, what needs to change?)

2) Is there a set of user conformance requirements we can agree to (on 
matters such as whether and potentially when attribute names can contain 
a colon and still be considered conforming)?  Again, the current draft 
contains a set of conformance requirements.  Can everybody live with 
them?  If not, what needs to change?

  - - -

My personal (non-chair) answers to #1 is yes, and to #2 is I think the 
current set of rules are way too draconian, and will be more honored in 
the breach than in the observance.

I'd be particularly interested in hearing if anybody says no to #1.

> -Tony

- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 21:58:45 UTC

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