- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 14:14:58 +0100
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: John Allsopp <john@westciv.com>, public-html@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote: > ... >> But in XML based languages you can extend the vocabulary, and this you >> can't in HTML. At least not the way it's currently defined. > > Can you name a single unilateral extension to the HTML element vocabulary > that was a positive step forward in the development of HTML? HTML is > almost 20 years old now, and (despite this being non-conforming) it has > had its element name vocabulary unilaterally extended many times. If being > able to do this was ever going to be a good thing, we'd have seen it by > now. Have we? > ... Again, the "who" is not the problem. We discussed this before. The problem is that even *if* a future W3C Working Group wants to add new elements, a change to the HTML parsing spec will be required. BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 13:29:21 UTC