- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 07:52:05 -0400
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
Henri Sivonen wrote: > > On Aug 3, 2007, at 19:59, Sam Ruby wrote: > >> Henri Sivonen wrote: >>> On Aug 2, 2007, at 18:16, Sam Ruby wrote: >>>> Since the workgroup demands use cases for any proposed new feature, >>>> I will provide one up front: this feature’s use case is to enable >>>> features without use cases. >>> ... >>>> FBML isn’t intended to be directly processed by browsers, but that >>>> shouldn’t preclude it from being processed by other HTML5 tools, >>>> everything from sanitizers to conformance checkers to pretty >>>> printers, to search engines. >>> Is it the assumption that HTML5 so extended would be served on the >>> public network in ways that would routinely expose the extension >>> markup to browsers? If the extensions are intended to be processed by >>> non-browser tools in the context of a walled garden such as Facebook, >>> wouldn't XHTML5 plus namespaced extensions work? >> >> Perhaps, for the six of us or so that seem capable of consistently >> producing well formed XML. > > OK. So do I understand correctly that the proposal is essentially to > extend the text/html serialization to a more general-purpose (even if > not fully general) alternative infoset serialization for private systems > where the people working with the private system cannot be trusted to > use XML? Wow. What a loaded question. First, I don't see how fb:mobile is any more or any less "private" than canvas. Second, I don't even know where to begin with "cannot be trusted to use XML". Let me pose a question. If Apple had decided that the canvas tag could only be used inside of XHTML pages, what affect would that have had on the adoption rate of that feature? >> Time for a concrete example: >> >> http://intertwingly.net/svg/410.svg >> >> If I don't use CDATA, the "410" shows up in IE. If I do use CDATA, >> nothing shows up in IE. >> >> We need a way to say "if you can't handle this extension, don't show >> anything (or perhaps, show a fallback defined separately)". >> >> Now, if we allow this use of CDATA, we need it to actually show up as >> a text node in the DOM as opposed to a comment node when used in >> precisely this circumstance. > > So the tokenizer handling of CDATA syntax would change depending on > whether the application layer knows about the kind of element that is > the current node on the tree builder layer at the particular moment? "application layer"? No. One can determine such factors as "does the name of the target parent element contain a colon" without needing to reference the hosting application. - Sam Ruby
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2007 11:52:14 UTC