W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2008

Re: ZIP-based packages and URI references into them ODF proposal

From: David Orchard <orchard@pacificspirit.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:39:16 -0800
Message-ID: <2d509b1b0812302139n51600c41q8372dcc06795197d@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Larry Masinter" <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

>
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > > > Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > > > > > Does the spec specify how to parse or serialize a future element
> > > > > > called
> > > > > > "foobar"?
> > > > > Yes.
> > > > OK, where, specifically, is the serialization defined?
> > >
> > > It's not allowed.
> >
> > Wow, great.
> >
> > So I conclude that HTML5 does not address extensibility at all. I think
> > it should.
>
> HTML5 does not provide for a way for groups other than the working group
> to invent new elements, yes. Historically, such attempts have proved
> somewhat disastrous -- <marquee>, <blink>, <spacer>, etc. In fact I am
> hard-pressed to come up with any good example of an extension in the
> element space that was benficial to the Web and wasn't developed by a
> working group.


I vigorously disagree with HTML5 WG appointing itself the gatekeeper to new
elements in HTML5.  I was informed on my blog that issue 41 afore the HTML5
WG is still open.  http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/41.

I'm not sure how to force this particular issue further in the HTML WG.
Perhaps the HTML5 WG should do a formal vote on this issue to determine how
to resolve this issue.

Cheers,
Dave
Received on Wednesday, 31 December 2008 05:39:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:09 GMT