W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2009

Re: Automatic XML namespaces

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:07:49 -0500
Message-ID: <4AF33095.5080200@intertwingly.net>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Nov 5, 2009, at 14:26, Jirka Kosek wrote:
>> There is also full paper from Balisage conference:
>> http://www.balisage.net/Proceedings/vol3/html/Quin01/BalisageVol3-Quin01.html 
> Interesting. Quotes from that document below
>> August 11 - 14, 2009
> Why is it that this reaches public-html only in November?
> This function is much better served by Google search.

I'll note that Liam's document was available via Google search.  :-)

Independent of who should have done what and when, I'd prefer that we 
focus on the technical aspects of the proposal, and to treat it is an 
honest attempt to find common ground, and to look forward rather than 

>> The XML community will not be motivated to support a new specification 
>> merely to satisfy the needs of some other community.
> But why should the HTML community add Namespaces to text/html merely to 
> satisfy another community?

Shame on both of you.  These communities are not disjoint.  I don't want 
to hear a "but he started it".  I simply want this to stop.  HTML5 is 
certainly not yet cast in stone, and apparently there is some wiggle 
room on what can and should be done going forward for XML.  How can we 
maximize common ground rather than promulgating historical divisions?

Aria is an example of an extension to HTML5 that works well with XHTML5. 
X3D is coming at this from an XML perspective and desperately wants to 
work well with HTML5(*).  Canvas started outside of the standards 
process, and datagrid and other new elements will undoubtedly be 
proposed, quite likely long after HTML5 is completely frozen.  What 
common lessens have we learned, and how do we guide the current and 
future efforts that we undoubtedly will have?

- Sam Ruby

(*) View source on my explorations last night:

Received on Thursday, 5 November 2009 20:08:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:02 UTC