W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2010

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:12:06 +0100
Message-ID: <4BA08ED6.8080705@gmx.de>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: "Ennals, Robert" <robert.ennals@intel.com>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
On 17.03.2010 00:38, Ian Hickson wrote:
> 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.

I disagree. One of the reasons for defining extension points is 

>>> 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.

I think we disagree about what a problem statement is.

>>>> 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.

I'm considering anything different because I look at the past and there 
wasn't a WG for a long time.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 17 March 2010 08:12:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:59 UTC