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

distributed/decentralized extensibility

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:51:40 -0500
Message-ID: <643cc0270910261051s2ed5419ka6e3308dab5d767a@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Reading the comments associated with the decentralized/distributed
extensibility issue, and the associated preliminary change proposal
put forth by Tony Russo of Microsoft, I think one fundamental
disconnect is not so much whether we can agree that decentralized
extensibility is needed or not, but whether we can even agree on what
it is.

I am of a mind now that perhaps we shouldn't be bringing up the need
for decentralized extensibility in the generic sense, but should be
focusing specifically on issues associated with namespaces. Or linking
one (namespaces) specifically to the other (decentralized
extensibility), specifically. We have problems with namespaces now,
and we will have problems with namespaces in the future. And
namespaces are not going away.

I'm wondering whether we shouldn't start a cycle of bug->issue->change
proposal specific to support of namespaces in HTML. Not as one
solution to decentralized extensibility, or anything specific to SVG<
but as an existing technique that is supported in XHTML, and needs
compatible support in HTML. There's already a bug about support for
namespaces in the HTML+RDFa document[1]. Seems a parallel bug about
inconsistent namespace support in HTML5 is appropriate.

My concern is we're going to lose something I think we need, because
we're so caught up in semantics of what something like decentralized
extensibility means.

I don't want to rain on Tony's parade, but I'm not flexible: I want
support for namespaces in HTML.

Unless a valid argument for me not to is proposed, I will begin the
bug->issue->change proposal process specifically for consistent
support for namespaces in HTML5. Then folks can continue with
discussions on decentralized extensibility without necessarily
worrying about it being tied to a namespace implementation.

Shelley
Received on Monday, 26 October 2009 17:52:15 UTC

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