Re: Possible *third* proposal for ISSUE-41 Distributed Extensibility

On Mar 19, 2010, at 14:34, Sam Ruby wrote:

> On 03/18/2010 11:12 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Ennals, Robert<>  wrote:
>>> Comments?
>>> If it seems that people might like this then Iíll 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.

Do you believe that D.E. should be used by parties other than browsers themselves to add experimental features to browsers (e.g. via Firefox extensions that observe what happens in Web content)?

Henri Sivonen

Received on Monday, 22 March 2010 11:36:28 UTC