RE: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel

Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net] wrote:
>[IE] apparently has user requirements for namespaces.  Enough so that
>they chose to expand namespace support in IE8.

Sort of.  We have had (in the past as well, imo, in the future) a requirement for decentralized extensibility - that is, that document/content authors can extend the set of elements with their own semantic or behavioral elements.  I continue to think there is a requirement for that.  (One might well ask why we didn't implement full XML in that case; I'll politely not answer from a historical context, but will point out that the draconian error handling and poor fallback story make delivering content in XML in the browser a poor solution in the ecosystem today.)

>My understanding is that what IE8 supports evolved over time and isn't
>pretty, so not even Microsoft would propose standardizing what IE8
>currently implements.

Indeed.

>Chris Wilson has the todo to define what he
>thinks could be standardized, and the current target for that action is
>a week from today.

I'll take a stab at it.  I think it's a very thorny issue, and I do not expect to have a perfect suggestion.

>My read is that if a suitable standard were defined and agreed to,
>Microsoft would be willing to move in that direction over subsequent
>releases of IE.

Of course.

>What they would not be willing to do is to have no
>namespace support at all.  Chris is welcome to correct me here.

I'd say I think it would be a distinct mistake to not have decentralized extensibility.  I think namespaces are a convenient, somewhat familiar way of thinking about that, but not perhaps the only way.

-Chris

Received on Friday, 6 March 2009 22:40:20 UTC