- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 01:04:47 -0700
- To: "Ennals, Robert" <robert.ennals@intel.com>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>, "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>
- Message-id: <8A1F94A5-5EF4-4208-B9DB-D79EFEDB7AD5@apple.com>
On Mar 22, 2010, at 9:57 PM, Ennals, Robert wrote: > Hi Guys, > > Since the initial response seemed generally positive, I have now > written up my new change proposal for ISSUE-41. > You can find it here: > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/extensionslikesvg Thank you for your submission. Now recorded at: http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-041 > > The intention is that it be a generalization of the model that has > already been taken for SVG and MathML. In particular: > > · All elements introduced by an extension must appear as > descendents of a root element (e.g. svg or math) > · A registry is used to coordinate the allocation of root > element names, and associate them with namespaces > · A root element MUST contain an xmlns giving the default > namespace of the extension – in order to be valid “extended HTML” > · A root element MUST contain an @extension attribute to > inform the HTML parser that the xmlns should be obeyed > · If an extension eventually becomes part of HTML, then it > is expected that the updated spec will not require the use of the > @extension attribute or the xmlns > · To support the above behavior, a user agent that supports > an extension should interpret a known root node that has no xmlns or > @extension as if both had been present . This allows a user agent to > correctly handle documents created in future versions of HTML that > make the supported extension standard. > · An extension can also define prefixed attributes that can > be applied to elements from other namespaces > · Such a prefix must be declared with an xmlns declaration, > and the element that makes that binding MUST have the @extension > attribute set, to inform the parser that the prefix should be > obeyed, rather than following current HTML parsing > · As with element names, prefixes must be registered, and if > a user agent understands an extension, it can infer the namespace > for prefixes that it understands > > The main rationale is to provide guidelines for the creators of > extension specs about how such specs should be written so that they > integrate well with HTML, and to provide guidelines for the creators > of user agents about what they should expect a document that uses an > extension to look like. Authors of extension specs are still > STRONGLY encouraged to communicate with the HTML WG to help design > their specs better. The aim of this proposal is to provide > guidelines about what the author of such a spec should expect from > this process, to streamline the process of making specs work with > HTML, and to communicate with the external community, including > those who, for whatever reason, might not want to talk to the HTML > WG, about how one should go about extending HTML. > > This proposal is designed to support platform extensions such as SVG > and MathML, and language extensions such as RDFa. It could also be > used to support vendor-specific extensions, however that is not the > primary goal of this proposal. > > > Thoughts? opinions, criticisms, improvements? > > -Rob > > >
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 08:05:22 UTC