Re: SVGWG SVG-in-HTML proposal (Was: ISSUE-41: Decentralized extensibility)

Ian Hickson wrote:

> However, the assumptions that namespace prefixes are bad and that handling 
> errors in a fatal manner is bad are both assumptions that we have taken as 
> fundamental in the HTML5 work since 2003, [...]

"We" ?  This WG did not exist in 2003.  I think you
must be referring to another group.

> If evidence to turn these assumptions around were indeed to come up, then 
> this would have a massive effect on the HTML5 spec, and would probably put 
> us back at least 6 months so that we could reengineer the spec to be 
> designed with the new principles in mind.

Which would be no bad thing.  Far better to delay
by six months than to rush to release something
that is fundamentally flawed.

> In cases where there is no consensus, we need to pick a choice and go 
> with it,

How does can you reconcile this statement with the fact
that this WG is a pat of the W3C, one of whose core values is
the importance of consensus [1] ?

Philip TAYLOR
--------
[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#Consensus

Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 10:44:27 UTC