W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2010

Re: Possible *third* proposal for ISSUE-41 Distributed Extensibility

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:34:44 -0400
Message-ID: <4BA36F64.8070806@intertwingly.net>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: "Ennals, Robert" <robert.ennals@intel.com>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
On 03/18/2010 11:12 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Ennals, Robert<robert.ennals@intel.com>  wrote:
>> Comments?
>>
>> If it seems that people might like this then I’ll write it up formally.
>
> Not a fan.  *Anything* that uses an XML Namespaces-like mechanism for
> embedding new elements is a bad idea, imo, because the fallback story
> (necessary to activate an experimental feature in multiple browsers,
> and to transition from experimental to standardized versions) is so
> horrible.  Maciej argued that it may be worse than not doing it at
> all, and just using the public name from the start.
>
> This is simply unusable as a way to allow browsers to add experimental
> features without clashing with each other and future standardized
> versions of the feature.

[co-chair hat off]

I don't believe that this proposal should be used by browsers to add 
experimental features.

Nor do I believe that this proposal should change parsing rules; 
furthermore XML Namespaces are published in a separate document from the 
XML specification, I see no reason why this proposal needs to be in the 
HTML5 specification at all; but both are tangents, More here:

  http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/04/08/HTML-Reunification
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0180.html

Net: I believe that Author Conformance Requirements are the real issue 
here, and until there is a coherent rationale for which conformance 
requirements are included and which are not, we will asymptotically 
approach a state where all implementation issues are resolved and what 
remains is a document conformance issues:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Mar/0314.html

I'm awaiting for rationale to be provided using the only mechanism 
available to request such:

   http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7034

If there is a coherent rationale provided that I can then use as a basis 
for filing individual bug reports on, I'll do that.  If not, I'll 
escalate the issue and volunteer to write a change proposal which 
revisits this from the top down.

My recommendation (which nobody needs to follow) is that the third 
proposal not be pursued at this time, and that depending on the outcome 
of issue 41 and bug 7034, a proposal may be made later to address 
authoring extensions, and that such a proposal is likely to take the 
form of a separate document.

> ~TJ

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 19 March 2010 12:35:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:05 GMT