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

On Oct 5, 2009, at 19:00, Sam Ruby wrote:

> But to position this as me not wanting to know the purpose... that's  
> simply a strawman.  Please stop.

I think I haven't positioned this as you not wanting to know the  
purpose. Rather, it would help me understand the issue better if you'd  
explain your goals regarding "decentralized extensibility" to the WG  
more clearly. I think defining what you mean by "decentralized  
extensibility" and what problems you believe it solves would help the  
WG make progress on this issue.

> I interpret Microsoft's post as a something to seed discussion, and  
> not (yet) as a proposal.  If they meant something more than that, I  
> hope that they clarify.

I concur with Shelley's comment here:

> For anybody to say that they can't live with something that has yet  
> to be proposed is a bit premature, in my opinion.

I think I haven't said I can't live with something. I've mostly asked  
questions, in order to understand the purpose of the proposal / seed  
for discussion.

> I'll try to make a separate statement later today on my personal  
> (i.e., not as chair) opinions are on the subject.

Great! Thanks.

> A quick overview: I believe that it is true that Microsoft could  
> implement the current HTML5 spec in IE9 in a way that would  
> effectively break the web AND I believe that it is true that if  
> other browsers were to adopt what MS put out for discussion, that  
> too would break the web.

I'm now confused how this relates to "decentralized extensibility".

Henri Sivonen

Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 06:33:52 UTC