- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:29:41 -0600
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Ennals, Robert" <robert.ennals@intel.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>, "Tran, Dzung D" <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Leif Halvard Silli > <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote: >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:11:38 -0600, Shelley Powers wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.wrote: >>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Ennals, Robert wrote: >>>>> Are you referring to the problem where random company X creates an >>>>> extension which has a big flaw, that extension gets widely adopted, >>>>> and then we are forced to accept a broken feature into the standard >>>>> since we can't change it without breaking stuff? >>>> >>>> Nope, I'm referring to the problem where Company X creates a >>>> namespaced extension, <foo:element>, and this then works its way up to >>>> becoming a standard <element>. >> [...] >>>> This is the reasoning behind Maciej's suggestion for doing >>>> element-level extensibility in attributes instead. Instead of >>>> <foo:element>, you'd do <div -foo-element> or similar. Then when the >>>> second browser puts out their experimental implementation, you can >>>> just change it to <div -foo-element -bar-element>. When it gets >>>> standardized, switch it to <element -foo-element -bar-element>. This >>>> gives you support for both legacy experimental implementation and >>>> current standardized implementations. As an added bonus, it requires >>>> no changes to the current parsing rules, as unknown attributes are >>>> already dealt with in an appropriate way. It just prevents you from >>>> validating, same as using vendor-specific additions in CSS. >>> >>> First, Maciej's suggestion is not compatible with the use of >>> namespaces in the XHTML version of HTML5. Second, the two, elements >>> and attributes, are not interchangeable. [...] >> >> Maciej's proposal is effectively a new method for declaring default >> namespaces. For those who have read the parallel thread about Googles >> jotspot namespace on the <body> element: >> >> <body -jotspot-body> > > I think I missed this one. But there's been so many threads related to > extensibility and namespaces lately, I'm not sure where I've read what > anymore. > > Thanks, I'll go back to that thread, and look at Maciej's proposal more closely. > >> -- >> leif halvard silli > > Shelley >
Received on Saturday, 21 November 2009 16:30:12 UTC