- From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 12:33:08 -0500
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- CC: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Oct 5, 2009, at 16:06, Shelley Powers wrote: >>> I see. Are existing JS libraries operating on SVG trees in existing >>> Web content using namespaced attributes and elements in way that >>> data-* attributes don't address? >>> >> >> So let me get this straight: you're expecting that when a person >> copies and pastes a SVG file into HTML5, they will go through the SVG >> and for every namespaced attribute, they will replace it with a >> data-* attribute? And what are they supposed to do with the >> namespaced elements? >> >> Do I understand you correctly? Is this your proposal? > > It's not a proposal. It's a question. The purpose of the question is > to understand if namespaced attributes have some important technical > characteristics (when network effects are ignored) that data-* > attributes don't have. OK, I understand what you're saying. > >>>> I tried to explain some uses and interests in distributed >>>> extensibility above. Let me know if these weren't sufficient. >>>> >>>> I believe that Tony also referenced a view of distributed >>>> (decentralized) extensibility, as well as some possible use cases. >>> >>> I'm interested in seeing a definition of what "decentralized >>> extensibility" so that alternative proposals can be tested against >>> the definition to determine if they constitute "decentralized >>> extensibility". (I guess it wouldn't be unexpected if you, Tony and >>> Sam came up with different definitions, although so far Sam seems to >>> be avoiding writing down a definition even when asked.) >>> >>> Currently, the WG lacks a definition against which to assess if e.g. >>> the naming scheme Jonas mentioned (<org_example_foo>) would be >>> "decentralized extensibility". >> >> I believe I have answered the question, and I think others have also. >> I'm not sure how else to answer it, though, so that it meets your >> criteria for a definition. > > Sorry for appearing dense, but I have missed your answer. Could you > please point me to it? > OK, I'll see if I can put something together for you. Shelley
Received on Monday, 5 October 2009 17:33:49 UTC