- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 19:31:18 +0100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote: > Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Julian Reschke >> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >>> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>>> The second isn't really distributed extensibility, because the >>>> browsers have to support each vocab manually. >>> I disagree that this isn't D.E. You seem to assume the D.E. implies some >>> kind of code-on-demand, which IMHO is not what most people think. >>> Otherwise >>> XML namespaces wouldn't qualify either. >> >> I'm making a slightly subtler point. Microdata, RDFa, and even XML >> Namespaces can all be processed with a generic processor that has no >> information about the actual vocabularies being used. You can just >> say "Find me all the items/triples/namespaced elements on the page", >> and it can do it. Thus the extensibility granted by these >> technologies is distributed, as no central authority has to recognize >> and bless your vocab for it to be processable by generic tools. >> ... > > Understood. > > This is the well-known issue of @profile allowing to signal the presence > of a specific extension, but being able to identify where exactly it is > used; so it doesn't disambiguate. > ... s/allowing/not allowing/ BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 18:32:00 UTC