- From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:25:12 -0500
- To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 5:26 AM, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com> wrote: > I thought "decentralised extensibility" with the case that the browser > didn't support what you were trying to for whatever reason. I don't see how > the proposal helps at all in that case. As far as I can tell, "decentralized extensibility" just means support for nonstandard extensions. Nonstandard extensions supported by browsers, or even made up by browsers in the first case (like <canvas>), fall under decentralized extensibility. Conversely, centralized extensions to HTML could conceivably be unsupported by browsers. I'm not sure how you can interpret "decentralized" to mean "unsupported by browsers". Microsoft's proposal in particular emphasized allowing third parties (presumably including them, a browser vendor) to reliably add elements and attributes to HTML. Automatic namespaces would seem to support this just as well as regular old namespaces, with much less burden on authors. The only other decentralized extensibility proposals I can think of offhand have used "decentralized extensibility" to mean "XML namespaces", and I don't know if this proposal preserves enough of the perceived benefits of XML namespaces to be acceptable to them. It's hard to tell when proposals focus on specific technologies rather than use-cases.
Received on Monday, 9 November 2009 14:25:56 UTC