W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2007

[whatwg] comments section 1

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:10:35 +1100
Message-ID: <4600A22B.5030605@lachy.id.au>
Daniel Glazman wrote:
> Subject: [whatwg] comments section 1

FYI, section numbers are subject to change (they have done several times 
over the spec's development).  It would be more useful if you used the 
section title.  It will make it less confusing if they change between 
now and the time Hixie gets to your feedback.

> 1.4.  The single fact that HTML v5 needs to use a 1999 namespace already
>       used by earlier versions of the language indicates that namespaces
>       are a rather bad solution to the problems they're trying to
>       solve... Conclusion : follow that path and imagine something
>       better.

That's the W3C's fault for for putting a date in the namespace URI, 
instead of something more sensible like they have now done for XBL2 [1]. 
  That is not one of the problems with namespaces in general, only a 
problem with that URI.  But we can't change the XHTML namespace without 
breaking backwards compatibility, so we're stuck with it.

[1] http://www.w3.org/ns/xbl
-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2007 20:10:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:33 UTC