- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:13:47 +0200
- To: "Shelley Powers" <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Adrian Bateman" <adrianba@microsoft.com>, "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Tony Ross" <tross@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:03:33 +0200, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote: > Anne, but then don't we have the use of URIs with namespaces? The only > difference is we specify the URI in one place and make a small, easy > to use alias for use elsewhere. If anything forcing people to repeat > an entire URI with each class name...that could add up, quickly and > significantly. I wasn't aware that the concept of distributed extensibility or decentralized extensibility came with a particular syntax. I'm not convinced that authors will have trouble with long identifiers. I actually think identifiers with a level of indirection will be more difficult to handle. > And that doesn't account for the need to extend HTML with elements. > Class names could possibly work as attributes, but not as elements. > With namespaces we can create both elements and attributes. A superior > option. For the widgets scenario one could just use data-* attributes. Also, a lot of added complexity is not necessarily superior in my book. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 12:14:25 UTC