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

Re: ISSUE-41: Creating a JavaScript DataGrid Widget

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 14:51:04 -0700
Message-ID: <q2odd0fbad1005031451uf95d3eaalccedc52265d74192@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> It sounds to me like the problems you are bringing up are exactly the
> same ones as there are with data-*. I.e. it doesn't seem like moving
> to the Y proposal solves or adds any problems, it just moves the same
> ones around. The only difference is that with Robs proposal you've
> removed the "data-" prefix, but all other problems remain.
> So far I haven't heard of any good bullet proof namespacing
> mechanisms. Either you end up with a registry where everyone fights
> over the good names and you end up problems like unregistered uses and
> x-not-so-temporary names. Or you end up with collision proof names
> which are way too long and end up with painful mechanisms to try to
> shorten them (xmlns, CURIE).
> What I prefer is a best effort solution. I.e. libraries and people do
> their best to avoid collisions. When collisions happen they will
> rarely end up being used at the same set of pages. And in the cases
> when they do end up in the same set of pages, people can deal. For
> example if two JS libraries become popular but started out using the
> same prefix, one of them can change. Or they can make the prefix
> configurable.
> Or worst worst case, in the very unlikely event that a web developer
> is *forced* to work with two stubborn libraries that use the same
> prefix, *and* that refuse to either change prefix or make it
> configurable, the developer can always modify the JS code in those
> libraries. But it seems extremely unlikely to get to that point.

I agree with Jonas, in that I don't believe there's really any problem
to be solved here.  In the case that the worst projections come true
and somehow everybody collides everywhere, we can burn cycles solving
it then, when we know exactly what the shape of the problem is.  Right
now we have examples that similar potential problems have been
resolved amicably by collective community action, so I'd rather just
let this one attempt to resolve itself in the same way.

Received on Monday, 3 May 2010 21:51:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:02 UTC