- From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 16:38:29 +0000
- To: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>, ixml <public-ixml@w3.org>
(I sent this reply using the wrong email address, and so it got rejected by the w3c server; apologies) One of my reasons for asking if pragmas can be nested (which in the call I didn't understand the answer to), is that if not, then we can use the same start and end character. As you know I'm in favour of comment symbols to send the proper message. A central requirement for ixml is that it be interoperable. My big fear is that pragmas will be used as a playground by implementors for implementing features that are non-standardised. We have seen how HTML has been ruined in this way; CSS too has been damaged. One way to combat that is to make it clear that pragmas have no effect on the language: by making them a subset of comments, it is a clear message that there can be no substantive effect, because removing comments can have no effect on the language. 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. «http://example.com/ <script type="text/javascript> .jfkhkfhsd(ioueritu) </script> » Steven On Saturday 29 January 2022 11:47:46 (+01:00), Dave Pawson wrote: > Can we resolve this please. Sometime before June > Suggestion, Each put forward their *single* preference, > I'll put them together, ask you for a weighted choice (QFD) > and hopefully the group will support that? > > My choice ¿ and ? > > regards > >
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2022 16:38:42 UTC