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

Re: ISSUE-41/ACTION-97 decentralized-extensibility

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 09:27:37 -0400
Message-ID: <4AC75149.7080106@intertwingly.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com>, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Oct 3, 2009, at 5:28 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Statements that I feel people can all agree to:
>> 1) People (as in users and customers) have, do, and will continue to 
>> use "xmlns:" syntax in HTML, and have, do, and will continue to build 
>> tools that solve their perceived use cases based on this syntax.
> What's our goal for what we're calling  "Decentralized extensibility"? 
> Is it to provide *any* form of extensibility that doesn't require 
> centralized coordination? Or is it to provide a syntax that uses 
> prefixes, colons as a separator, indirect prefix binding, URIs as 
> namespace identifiers, and xmlns attributes to declare prefixes?
> I get the sense that, for many people, only a solution that looks like 
> Namespaces in XML will satisfy.
> If that is indeed the case, should we rename this issue from 
> "Decentralized extensibility" to "XML-style namespace syntax"?

At the present time, I don't care what the issue is called, but I don't 
see consensus on what the values of localName, prefix, namespaceURI (and 
possibly tagUrn) should return, and that's what I would like to see 

> Regards,
> Maciej
Received on Saturday, 3 October 2009 13:28:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:00 UTC