- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:14:13 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Julian Reschke wrote: > Ian Hickson wrote: > > > If you can make it unnecessary without suffering from other drawbacks, > > > like chattiness, unreliable disambiguation and unnecessary mapping > > > problems to other specs, fine. > > > > Using a domain name followed by a hyphen followd by a word seems to > > solve all of these simply. > > If a domain name would be sufficient. So how many people within, for > instance, Google, would want the ability to mint names, and how would > you coordinate them? A simple registry in a revision control system, probably, or a wiki. > > > > Why? Are you concerned that people using different dismabiguation > > > > schemes would somehow come up with clashing names? How would that > > > > happen? Could you give an example? > > > > > > Of course that could happen. For instance, when using domain names, > > > is the TDL right (URI) or left (Java packages). And so on. > > > > Could you actually give an example where this could happen? I haven't > > been able to find a case where an actual clash could happen. > > I'm pretty sure it can easily happen now that new restrictions on new > TLDs have been more or less removed. Could you actually give an example where this could happen? I haven't been able to find a case where an actual clash could happen, even with a totally open TLD space. > > Consider that even without any sort of disambiguation mechanic other > > than just picking unusual names, Microformats has had no serious > > problems with clashes. If you add domain names to the same thing, the > > problem really becomes moot. > > The microformats process does not scale. It "works" because it simply > rejects proposals that do not look "common" enough, which of course > reduces the number of potential clashes significantly. Microformats scales across the entire Web. That's pretty good as far as I can tell. It's not just clases with other Microformats that matter, it's clashes across all users of classes. > That being said, clashes have occurred (what does the "title" class name > stand for?), and it's also a known problem that you get in trouble once > you want to nest information. These problems are fixable without complicated disambiguation schemes. > > > What if you don't have a domain name, and prefer a UUID. Or a URN? > > > Or a date-stamped URI (tag: URI scheme)? URIs give you the choice. > > > > class="C4E15D82-61A2-11DD-977B-B4AD55D89593" > > class="isbn:0674003810" > > class="ian@hixie.ch,2008-08-03,category" > > > > None of these are ambiguous. They don't even have to use the same > > scheme -- since they're all completely opaque, so long as you generate > > something that is unambiguous, you will know that it can never clash > > with someone else's. No need for URIs. > > I disagree. For instance, an abbreviation such as "isbn" can be > ambiguous. The name wasn't "isbn" it was "isbn:0674003810". But if you think even that is too likely to clash, then don't use it, use something you think is safer. That's up to you. > > > > > Again: who is "we" in this case? Certainly not the HTML WG. > > > > > > > > So you're in favour of the behaviour seen in the browser wars > > > > where people just made up their own tags all the time? > > > > > > > > I am not. > > > > > > I am in favor of being able to use new vocabularies without getting > > > the WHATWG's or the W3C's approval first. The price for that is that > > > I have to put them into a separate namespace, and that is totally > > > fine. It works everywhere else. > > > > If the price for that is that you have to use a syntax intended for > > this use, which is in a different _syntactic_ space than the > > language's main vocabulary, is _that_ an acceptable price? > > Not sure what exactly you mean by "syntactic space". Namespace-qualified > elements *are* in a different space, right? I mean that instead of sticking your extension here: <xxxx> ...you stick it here: <div class="xxxx"> It's a different syntactic space than the language's main vocabulary. Is that an acceptable price? > Point 2: transformations in general are not required to look for > profiles (pointer?). Again, are you mixing up GRDDL (the base spec) with > GRDDL use cases for microformats? If transformations are not required to look for profiles, then ignore my second point. Problem solved. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 4 August 2008 17:45:57 UTC