- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:18:24 -0700
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: "Ennals, Robert" <robert.ennals@intel.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-id: <CD3D046D-CF53-47E5-A879-674610431770@apple.com>
On Mar 16, 2010, at 5:10 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > 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. I think Microdata and RDFa are good examples of standardized extensions. However, as a browser engine developer, I would like the ability to do vendor extensions (either experimental or not intended for public Web content) without stepping on valuable shared namespace. We have a decent way to do that with CSS properties using the vendor prefix convention(*). It would be nice to have something similar at the HTML level. It seems like Rob's proposals (either X or Y) would provide ways to do that. Historically, vendor extensions to HTML have all been done by simply minting new elements and attributes with unprefixed names, often making it harder to clean up the way these features work as part of the standards process. For DOM APIs, in WebKit we have tried to use a prefix for anything that's experimental or not far enough along the standards track, and we hope other browser engine teams consider a similar convention. However, it's harder to centralize such a convention since the set of APIs available in the browser is defined by many different specs. Regards, Maciej * - I know that there are some downsides to the CSS vendor prefixed property convention - often it leads to sites specifying have a dozen copies of essentially the same property. I think part of the problem is that, by convention of the CSS WG, properties are supposed to be considered experimental until the relevant spec is in CR. While this reduces the change that it will become hard to make needed changes, it probably leaves properties in "experimental" state a little too long.
Received on Wednesday, 17 March 2010 01:19:00 UTC