- From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 12:26:51 -0500
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote: > Why is it not conceivably reusable outside of HTML? Well, okay, let me back down a bit on that. It's conceivably reusable outside of HTML, yes. But no more or less than, say, <video>. It's plausible that other specifications would want to include videos. For instance, SVG currently allows embedding bitmap images, and it might make sense for it to allow embedding videos too. The same goes for many other parts of HTML, even <img>. But we shouldn't split up the specification because some other spec might theoretically want to use some part of it separately. That will lead to splitting up the spec into a huge number of pieces, probably at the wrong places. It will also waste effort in the cases where no other spec actually ends up using part of it separately. XHTML 1.1 and CSS 3 both tried a modular design, and as far as I know, few to none of their modules are actually used by other specs independent of the others. If authors of non-HTML specs actually *ask* for something to be split to a separate modular spec so they can reference it, that's when we should split something to a separate spec for the sake of modularity.
Received on Monday, 7 December 2009 17:27:24 UTC