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

On Tue, 16 Mar 2010, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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.

I'm saying your statement is non-sequitur.


> > 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."

That isn't a problem statement. The above doesn't even mention users once. 
It doesn't give any rationale.


> > > 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?

It would be hugely irresponsible for us to leave HTML unmaintained while 
still in use. I'm shocked anyone in the standards community would even 
consider anything different. Specs must be living documents.


-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Tuesday, 16 March 2010 23:38:29 UTC