- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:35:23 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008, Sam Ruby wrote: > > It is my belief that discussion of namespace prefixes as an indirection > syntax in what possibly might be a very limited and constrained scope > should not only be allowed to proceed but also encouraged Prefixes as an indirection syntax being a fundamentally bad design is something that has been assumed as a fundamental design decision for years. Unless new evidence has come up suggesting that this decision is flawed, reopening the issue is not a good use of our time. Is there any new evidence? Are there any proposals that show indirection syntax can be designed in a manner that doesn't have the problems that other prefix-based proposals have had? > I believe that the following merits serious consideration: > > http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?LinkID=110272 This syntax, as well as the actual syntax that IE8 beta 1 implements (which to be frank is really very different from what the whitepaper describes), as well as the syntax supported in earlier versions of IE, and a number of variant syntaxes based on these ideas, have been seriously considered in excruciating detail already. But I've already explained this many times before, so I don't know why you keep bringing this up. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 00:36:05 UTC