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

Re: Possible Compromise solution for namespaces in HTML5

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:32:36 +0100
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, "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>
Message-ID: <20091121223236357110.767ee26b@xn--mlform-iua.no>
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:14:44 -0600, Shelley Powers 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.

I just wondered if Maciej or anyone that have looked at that suggestion 
had any idea about what would happen if the <body> element was given a 
namespace. 
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Saturday, 21 November 2009 21:33:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:03 UTC