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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:57:03 +0100
Message-ID: <4BA00CBF.4050004@gmx.de>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: "Ennals, Robert" <robert.ennals@intel.com>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
On 16.03.2010 22:55, Ian Hickson wrote:
> 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.

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

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

<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/41>:

"The HTML5 specification does not have a mechanism to allow 
decentralized parties to create their own languages, typically XML 
languages, and exchange them in HTML5 text/html serializations.  This 
would allow languages such as SVG, MathML, FBML and a host of others to 
be included.  At one point, an editors version of the HTML5 
specification contained a subset and reformulation of SVG and MathML. 
Tim Berners-Lee described this incorporation of SVG and MathML without 
namespaces as horrific and the issue raiser [Dave Orchard] completely 
concurs with the him.

This issue limits the ability of non-HTML5 working groups to define 
languages as the languages must be "brought into" the HTML5 language. 
This dramatically increases the scope of HTML5 and decreases the ability 
to modularize development of orthogonal languages."

> 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.

Clarifying again: so you assume that as long as HTML continues to be 
important, there'll be a W3C HTML WG in place?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 16 March 2010 22:57:45 UTC

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