- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 18:21:31 -0800
- To: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "public-xhtml2@w3.org" <public-xhtml2@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com> wrote: > 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.) I would like to see this too, but I have similar reservations about XML. >>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. Looking forward to a suggestion! I doubt there are perfect solutions. Nothing else about the real world is perfect... / Jonas
Received on Saturday, 7 March 2009 02:22:18 UTC