- From: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:48:22 +0300
- To: Chris Wilson <chris.wilson@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Chris, On Jul 17, 2008, at 8:06 AM, Chris Wilson wrote: > > I just realized I'd never sent my opinion about extensibility in HTML. > > In short, I think extensibility is a very good idea, with some > parameters around it. Particularly as I look at the challenges of > sanely incorporating vocabularies such as SVG and MathML, and then > what we would need to do when the next vocabulary comes along, it > would seem to be a necessity (or we're just encouraging people to > roll their own). I think it's a poor language that doesn't think > about its own extensibility, particularly when its own vocabulary > already approaches "prohibitively large". I agree 100%. By avoiding namespaces in the text/html serialization of HTML5 we are creating unnecessary complications fro authors and implementors. IE already has a namespace implementation somewhat compatible with XMl namespaces for the text/html serialization and all major browsers have XML namespace implementations that could be reused for the text/html serialization. Authors already familiar with XML namespaces and IE namespaces will find transitioning to HTML5 text/ html SVG MathML etc needlessly non-standard (in the sense that it is a complete diversion to what they're used to). HTML5 should include namespaces in either serialization that are consistent with XML namespaces and IE’s text/html namespaces. Take care, Rob
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2008 19:49:18 UTC