- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 03:11:15 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18669 Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED CC| |danieljb2@gmail.com, | |esprehn@gmail.com, | |ian@hixie.ch, | |sjmiles@chromium.org, | |sorvell@chromium.org Resolution|FIXED |--- --- Comment #5 from Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org> --- Hixie protests going with tags in bug 18863: -- begin -- Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2012-12-14 22:45:31 UTC I still think that this whole thing of allowing authors to just make up element names is a REALLY BAD IDEA. It's the whole XML fiasco all over again. People are just going to make up their own elements, with no fallback, no semantics, no way for search engines to know what's going on, no way for accessibility tools to work out what's going on, no way for older UAs to work out what's going on, no way to quickly swap out one widget set and swap in a new one, etc. I really think this is the single biggest mistake of the Web Components work. -- end -- I would really like to reach some sort of consensus here. Neither "is" nor tags solution is without warts. We need to definitively determine which one has fewer warts and go with that. I thought we've done this, but not widely enough. Let's do it again, then. I think it's bad to move this spec along to FPWD when Ian is actively against this part. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 16 December 2012 03:11:17 UTC