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

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Ennals, Robert <robert.ennals@intel.com> wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> [snip]
>> > It seems to me that this proposal adds a new extensibility mechanism,
>> > and thus is in the scope of the issue as I presented it last month:
>> >
>> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0796.html
>> >
>> > The fact that you could also describe it in more specific terms, based
>> > on the nature and purpose of the proposed extensibility mechanism, does
>> > not make it out of scope for the issue.
>>
>> If this is a "distributed extension" mechanism, then the term means even
>> less than I thought it did. I'm even more at a less as to what this issue
>> is supposed to cover than I was before. Is readding microdata to the spec
>> in scope? Is merging all of XBL2 into the spec in scope? Both of those are
>> much more "distributed extensibility" than conventions for vendor- specific
>> experiments.
>
> Referring to the original ISSUE-41 definition, I think what people want is the ability to define extensions similar to SVG, MathML, and FBML that can be used in an HTML document.
>
> Notably, these were all extensions that changed the way that a page was visually rendered. This is different from Microdata, which is designed to be used exclusively for metadata IIRC.

However Microdata, RDFa (and soon @profile) are great proofs that the
HTML5 spec already has the ability to be extended in ways similar to
SVG, MathML and FBML.

All that anyone needs to do is to write up a specification for their
extension and they're done. So for example Facebook could publish a
spec for FBML somewhere on their site, and then anyone could use FBML
in HTML.

/ Jonas

Received on Wednesday, 17 March 2010 00:11:12 UTC