Hi Rob, Thanks for your submissions. I have recorded both of your Change Proposals on the issue status page: http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-041 I have left the call for volunteers open, in case anyone else chooses to submit any additional proposals. Regards, Maciej On Mar 15, 2010, at 8:28 PM, Ennals, Robert wrote: > As promised, I have created a change proposal for ISSUE-41, > Distributed Extensibility. > > In fact, I’ve created two. One proposal is basically my original > proposal that I promised to write up as a proposal. This is designed > with the aim of preserving compatibility with XML namespaces while > taming their worst effects. The other proposal is one I now think I > prefer, and is designed with the aim of minimizing the possible > risks from extensions to HTML, and making things as simple as > possible to users, at the cost of making it more awkward to use > existing XML specifications in HTML documents. > > They are here: > > Proposal X: compatible with XML namespaces: > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/fixedprefixlikexml > > Proposal Y: tries to give a better fallback and backwards-compat > story: > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/fixedprefixsimple > > > The main differences between the two are: > · X uses “:” as the prefix separator, while Y uses “-“ > · X puts a prefixed node into the namespace defined by > XMLNS, or null if there is no XMLNS, while Y has no namespace. X’s > behavior is incompatible with current HTML5 behavior, but compatible > with XMLs. The alternative is to follow current HTML5 behavior, but > that means that XML and HTML parses of the same document have > different DOM trees, which is arguably even worse. > · X allows an HTML document to mix in existing XML specs. Y > requires existing XML specs to be reformulated as an attribute-based > “-“ prefixed extension in order to be mixed into HTML documents – > but the resulting document has a better fall-back story. > · X allows an extension spec to define new element types > while Y doesn’t (authors should write <tag prefix-foo> instead, > where “tag” is whatever tag is most appropriate in the current > version of HTML) > > The ideas in common are: > · A prefix has a fixed meaning. > · A prefix should be registered in a wiki (or something else > similar) to avoid clashes. > · An experimental prefix starting with “x-“ can be used > without registering. > · A document will parse the same in XML and HTML. > · A document that uses extensions is not valid HTML, but is > valid “extended HTML”. > > I initially liked X, but after thinking about it for a while, > decided that the compatibility issues with “:” and the potential > fallback problems from extensions defining their own element types > outweighed the advantage of being able to mix in existing XML specs > unmodified – resulting in Y. > > > Thoughts? > > -Rob > >Received on Wednesday, 17 March 2010 01:24:02 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:13 UTC