W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2004


From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:44:44 -0800
To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BC6272C3.370EC%tantek@cs.stanford.edu>

On 2/25/04 2:32 PM, "David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>> I posit that the lack of namespaces was not in small part responsible for
>> this success. That is to say, I would guess that every namespace added to
>> a language will dramatically reduce it's ease of use for authors. I know
> I'd agree.

I would too.

>  I refer to this effect as "single technology solutions".

This is a common misconception.  There is a difference between:

1. "single technology solutions"
2. "seamless multiple technology solutions"
3. "clumsy multiple technology solutions"

I agree that new technologies that require (i.e. non-optional) use of a new
namespaces fall into category 3.

> EcmaScript, DOMs, and CSS are seen
> as part of HTML in popular culture,

And are a great example of category 2 above, not 1.

> and can be included in the same
> file,

Ease of integration is certainly one axis to evaluate how "seamless" a
multiple technology solution is.

Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2004 18:44:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:07 UTC