- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:34:44 -0400
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: "Ennals, Robert" <robert.ennals@intel.com>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
On 03/18/2010 11:12 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Ennals, Robert<robert.ennals@intel.com> wrote: >> Comments? >> >> If it seems that people might like this then I’ll write it up formally. > > Not a fan. *Anything* that uses an XML Namespaces-like mechanism for > embedding new elements is a bad idea, imo, because the fallback story > (necessary to activate an experimental feature in multiple browsers, > and to transition from experimental to standardized versions) is so > horrible. Maciej argued that it may be worse than not doing it at > all, and just using the public name from the start. > > This is simply unusable as a way to allow browsers to add experimental > features without clashing with each other and future standardized > versions of the feature. [co-chair hat off] I don't believe that this proposal should be used by browsers to add experimental features. Nor do I believe that this proposal should change parsing rules; furthermore XML Namespaces are published in a separate document from the XML specification, I see no reason why this proposal needs to be in the HTML5 specification at all; but both are tangents, More here: http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/04/08/HTML-Reunification http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0180.html Net: I believe that Author Conformance Requirements are the real issue here, and until there is a coherent rationale for which conformance requirements are included and which are not, we will asymptotically approach a state where all implementation issues are resolved and what remains is a document conformance issues: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Mar/0314.html I'm awaiting for rationale to be provided using the only mechanism available to request such: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7034 If there is a coherent rationale provided that I can then use as a basis for filing individual bug reports on, I'll do that. If not, I'll escalate the issue and volunteer to write a change proposal which revisits this from the top down. My recommendation (which nobody needs to follow) is that the third proposal not be pursued at this time, and that depending on the outcome of issue 41 and bug 7034, a proposal may be made later to address authoring extensions, and that such a proposal is likely to take the form of a separate document. > ~TJ - Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 19 March 2010 12:35:18 UTC