- From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 15:16:56 +0000
- To: "Norm Tovey-Walsh" <norm@saxonica.com>
- Cc: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>, public-ixml@w3.org
It's also a psychological issue: here is a place where you can play, vs people just doing stuff in comments. The <script> tag in HTML unleashed a monster. Steven On Tuesday 01 February 2022 16:09:03 (+01:00), Norm Tovey-Walsh wrote: > Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> writes: > >> Making pragmas something different where the only intended audience > >> is implementations, and each implementation can do its thing runs the > >> risk of implementations using it as a playground for ixml divergence, > >> and as a place where implementations can satisfy use cases without > >> making them a standardised part of the language. > > > > And, by the way, the discussions this week have only strengthened my > > fears. To my eyes, pragmas are turning into a monster. > > Putting pragmas in the language doesn’t create this problem. It draws a > box around it, puts standard syntax on it, and at least makes possible a > degree of standardized interoperability. > > Declining to put pragmas in the language won’t stop implementors from > doing what they want. They can either extend the grammar that their > implementations recognize in a non-standard way or use magic comments > which will invite confusion and reduce interoperability. > > Be seeing you, > norm > > -- > Norm Tovey-Walsh > Saxonica >
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2022 15:17:14 UTC