Re: XML namespaces on the Web

Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 11/19/09 8:22 AM, Liam Quin wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 12:47:15PM +0000, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>> Now, I'd like to ask from everyone who has argued the position that the
>>> Application may continue processing the stream after the XML 1.0 
>>> Processor
>>> has signaled a fatal error:
>>>   * Do you believe the above construction black-box-testably 
>>> constitutes an
>>>   XML 1.0 Processor and (a part of) an Application? (If not, why not?)
>>>   * Do you believe the construction subverts the intent of the XML 
>>> 1.0 spec?
>>>   (If not, why not?)
>>
>> http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/08/16/specs
>> (to be read as a humorous take, of course).
> 
> I should not that this does not address the core issue, which is that 
> there seems to be some substantial disagreement on what the XML 1.0 spec 
> actually calls for or should call for (not necessarily the same, of 
> course) in terms of required processing or not-processing.  It might be 
> worth for someone to try to answer Henri's questions...

My experience is that attempting to answer questions that are worded 
with loaded phrases like "subverting the intent" is a fools errand.

I will also note that a number of people in this very working group are 
quite comfortable with an HTML5 specification which contains a number of 
"willful violations".

What I believe I have heard is that a number of vendors have indicated 
that making application/xhtml+xml more usable is theoretically possible, 
but simply not a priority at this time.  I actually have a bit of 
sympathy for this position, as I believe that despite being a potential 
beneficiary to such a change and possibly even having the needed skills 
to make the change itself, it is simply not my personal highest priority 
at this time either.

A more relevant question would be: what is Liam's intent?  Having talked 
to him at TPAC, I gather that he would like to see an XML' (read as: XML 
prime) which differs as little as possible from the current XML 
recommendation but is somewhat more suitable for a (possible niche) set 
of use cases that he doesn't perceive HTML5 satisfying.

If I understand Liam's intent correctly, I believe that such entails a 
lot of work: a lot of specification, a lot of advocacy, a lot of coding, 
and lot of testing, etc.  Having Liam (or others) focus on tangible and 
concrete proposals (ideally coupled with running prototypes) is a lot 
more likely to produce something tangible than answering questions about 
somebody else's intent.

> -Boris

- Sam Ruby

Received on Thursday, 19 November 2009 16:01:05 UTC