- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:17:09 +0100
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: John Allsopp <john@westciv.com>, public-html@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote: > ... > Thus there is no need for HTML5 to have author-usable features for > extensibility to solve the problems of decades from now. The extensibility > mechanisms for authors (and HMTL5 has many [1]) should solve _today's_ > problems; and the language should be designed in such a way that the I'd prefer extensibility also to address future problem (at least to try that), otherwise it's really a poor kind extensibility :-) > future maintainers of HTML can later extend the language to fix their > problems. This is just how HTML4 was done; it's how CSS was done; it's how > XML was done (you can't invent new XML syntax, for instance, that would > require a new version of XML). > ... That is misleading. The important difference in XML is that the syntax is frozen (-> no new parser required, at least in theory (*)), but XML-based languages are extensible nevertheless (on the vocabulary level, not the syntax level). Best regards, Julian (*) XML 1.0 5th ed
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 09:17:59 UTC