- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:09:51 +0100
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- CC: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>, HTMLWG Tracking WG <public-html@w3.org>
Henri Sivonen wrote: >> It does work better. >> >> Yes, there may be clients that are broken. > > And why might that be? Perhaps XML is tough. Yes, for people that do not use XML parsers, or do not understand their APIs. >>> Putting all the element names from the Web platform languages (XHTML, >>> SVG, MathML) into a single space of XML element names without any URI >>> binding mechanism. That is, if HTML defined "table", it is taken and >>> MathML should define "mtable". >> >> Doesn't scale. How do you add a new vocabulary? Don't say you don't >> need to in the future. > > In the past decade, the vocabulary of the Web platform has been extended > by a whopping two additional element sets: SVG and MathML. Next XBL2 may > join the platform. Cause or effect? > ... >>>> I fail to see how this is a problem. Is copy & paste too hard? >>> Yes, when the plausible alternative is not having to do that. >> >> Well, short names require a central registry. > > A central registry is a good thing in order to avoid a Babel of > languages with no coherent common feature set for authors to rely on. And then the registry becomes the bottleneck, and people start using names without registering them. We've been there before, haven't we? >> Doesn't scale as well as URIs. See the related microformats discussions. > > http://www.w3.org/TR/ seems to scale well enough to cover HTML, SVG and > MathML. Not sure what you're trying to say here. BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 15:10:34 UTC