- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:08:23 +0000 (UTC)
- To: "Ennals, Robert" <robert.ennals@intel.com>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010, Ennals, Robert wrote: > > I outlined several such problem statements in my proposals. In > particular: > > It is often useful for people to define extensions to HTML. On the contrary, it's rather rare, as far as I can tell. > These may be vendor-specific experiments for features that may > eventually get folded into the main HTML spec. They may be > enterprise-specific extensions that would be of little use for general > HTML. They may be community-specific features that are useful to too few > people to make sense as part of the core spec. They may be experiments > by a relatively obscure group on top of a patched open source browser > that turn out to work well and get adopted by a vendor. The above isn't a problem statement, since all of the above happens today. What is the problem with the status quo? Is this the problem?: "People who want to invent non-standard proprietary extensions to HTML for private use or for experimental use do not currently have guidelines describing a convention they can use to do so in a manner that reduces the risk of such extensions causing problems with future development of HTML itself." > I think there is value in allowing people to experiment with extensions > such as SVG, MathML, FBML, 3D, Canvas, etc, without having to wait for > the HTML WG to merge such specs into the HTML standard. People have been doing that (with all five!). Where's the problem? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 17 March 2010 04:08:57 UTC