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

Re: TWO Change proposals for ISSUE-41 : Distributed Extensibility

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:55:23 +0000 (UTC)
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Ennals, Robert" <robert.ennals@intel.com>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1003162150320.13471@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
> a) Defining an extensibility model should take avoiding syntax clashes 
> into account.

Sure. It should also take into account not introducing security problems, 
but that doesn't mean sandbox="" is in scope for ISSUE-41. It should also 
avoid being inaccessible, but that doesn't mean changes to ARIA are in 
scope for ISSUE-41.

Unfortunately since nobody will say what problem ISSUE-41 is trying to 
solve, it's impossible for me to deteremine what _is_ in scope.

I continue to think it is a huge procedural mistake to have such a poorly- 
defined and open-ended issue on the table.


> b) Clarifying: so you assume that there'll always be an HTML WG to 
> coordinate this?

If HTML becomes so unimportant that there's no longer a need to maintain 
it, then vendor-specific experimental extensions aren't likely to be 
created, much less clash with each other.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 16 March 2010 21:55:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:59 UTC