Re: ISSUE-41: decentralized-extensibility - Chairs Solicit Proposals

On Feb 23, 2010, at 6:07 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> "Decentralized Extensibility"
>> This issue has been open nearly two years, and there has been much
>> discussion. It was originally raised before the current decision  
>> policy
>> went into effect. While our drafts include a number of extensibility
>> mechanisms, there have been many suggestions for additional
>> extensibility mechanisms. Some WG members have expressed their  
>> eagerness
>> to write up their ideas more formally and move forwad on this  
>> issue. Per
>> the decision policy, at this time the chairs would like to solicit
>> volunteers to write Change Proposals.
> This seems like a very vague issue. What exactly is the problem for  
> this
> issue? (i.e. how do I know if something I want to propose is in  
> scope of
> this issue or not?)

This issue is about extensibility mechanisms for HTML5. I am aware of  
the following extensibility mechanisms, either in the HTML5 draft  
proper, or defined in extension specs:

- class attribute
- <a rel> / <link rel>
- <meta name content>
- data-* attributes
- "Other applicable specifications" extension point
- <script type=""> with a custom type to embed raw data
- <embed>/<object>
- XML Namespaces (only in the XML serialization)
- Microdata

We also have a proposal to add the profile attribute as an  
extensibility mechanism, via a separate extension draft.

A Change Proposal would be in scope for this issue if it proposed one  
or more of the following:
- Add one or more extension mechanisms to the above list, either in  
the main spec or as a separate extension draft.
- Remove one or more of the above listed extension mechanisms.
- Make no change to our set of extension mechanisms.

In particular, even though the issue text mentions XML-style  
namespaces, proposals for this issue would be in scope even if they do  
not direct relation or resemblance to Namespaces in XML.

Since this is a very open-ended issue, and since many proposals made  
in the past have fairly complex implications, we will expect Change  
Proposals to spell out in detail any changes to document conformance  
or implementation processing requirements. As always, we will also  
expect proper rationale.


Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 02:55:42 UTC