On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Julian Reschke wrote: > Ian Hickson wrote: > > > Of course it makes sense for a specification to state how > > > extensibility works. > > > > Stating what the extensibility mechanisms of a language are, and > > stating the future actions of as yet non-existent working groups, are > > two very different things. > > Yes. So what? You asked for the latter. The spec already has the former. > If this WG (the HTML WG as of 2008) defines the syntax for future > elements to be non-void, and code implements that behavior, I'd be > surprised if a future WG would reverse that decision. I've been involved in W3C working groups long enough to not at all be surprised by working groups reversing decisions. > That's a very verbose way to state "must ignore unknown values". It's a precise way of saying it, that leaves nothing ambiguous. That's the whole point. > So, if XML 1.0 *did* say that, how would you then introduce a new value? > Older recipients would ignore it, after all. If older recipients ignore the value, then we're golden. Just introduce the new value, and then you have predictable down-level behavior and predictable up-level behavior. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'Received on Tuesday, 30 December 2008 13:42:05 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 30 December 2008 13:42:05 GMT