W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Decentralised extensibility idea (ISSUE-41)

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 21:50:09 +0100
To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Cc: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100116215009492213.75259137@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Aryeh Gregor, Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:16:26 -0500:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote:
>> Here are some use cases, where currently XML-style namespaces, or
>> proprietary extensions to HTML might be used, that might instead be
>> solved using my proposal:
>>        * a WYSIWYG editor wishes to use a special attribute to note
>>          that certain parts of a document should be skipped by the
>>          spell check function. Rather than adding a proprietary
>>          attribute or using namespaces, they'd just add something
>>          like data-spellcheck="skip" to those elements, with a
>>          profile attribute allowing that particular data-*
>>          attribute to have a globally-defined meaning.
>>        * A phone company introduces a revolutionary new multi-head
>>          browser, designed for use on dual-screen phones. Pages are
>>          generally viewed on the primary screen, but the documents
>>          can specify certain sections which are intended for the
>>          second screen. Rather than introduce a proprietary element,
>>          they suggest a class+profile combination to indicate which
>>          element(s) go on the second screen.
> 1) Why can't you use Microdata for both of those just as easily?

Because applying a class, without the URI, is simpler than the MD 
knee-jerks. Using MD as if it was a markup language spec is shoehorning 
it. (Or can you show how to implement spellcheck="skip" with MD? An 
even so: Any UA or editor still has to implement the MD spellcheck skip 
- there is noting in MD which makes it automatically happen. )

> 2) Why shouldn't these vendors be forced to go through the
> standardization process like everyone else

They don't need to be vendors. You want them to use Microdata? OK. But 
if they choose Microdata then they don't need "to go through the 
standardization process like everyone else".

> if they want documents containing their feature to be valid HTML?

Profiles only help defining a subclass of already valid HTML.

>  If the feature is not
> openly specified, it will only work with some UAs, and arguably has a
> higher chance of being poorly considered.

As long as Microdata is not part of the HTML5 language, then UAs and 
and validators can somehow ignore it. It is an extra. Otherwise, 
profiles /are/ openly specified - as they point to a URI (which holds a 

>  As soon as there's a formal
> specification of a feature, and anyone wants to implement it, it's an
> "applicable specification" and can simply add new attributes if it
> pleases.

Your definition of "applicable specification" is what? If I say that it 
is applicable, then it is? Then what about validation? Few are those 
that can develop their own validator. And even if they can, they cannot 
get all third-parties and clients etc to use _their_ validator - and so 
the extra attributes causes them to loose customer etc because they use 
"invalid code".

This WG could also decide that Toby's DE/profile specification is an 
"applicable specification". The DE-via-@profile proposal is merely a 
spec for linking in - and sharing "non-W3 approved applicable 
leif halvard silli
Received on Saturday, 16 January 2010 20:50:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:07 UTC