W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: Web Components Suggestion

From: Chaals McCathieNevile <w3b@chaals.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:38:48 +0200
Cc: "Dave Geddes" <davidcgeddes@gmail.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
To: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <op.wiy2e5d022x22q@chaals.local>
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 10:47:22 +0200, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> wrote:
>> There is no conceivable conformance checker that's going to allow the  
>> use of completely arbitrary tag names. It doesn't matter what formalism
>> it uses.
>> To allow custom tag names and still be able to check the conformance of
>> normal tag names, the only possibility is to limit the custom tag names  
>> to some recognized prefix -- e.g., x-fancyButton or whatever.
> <x:fancy-button>

Yes, XML has a way to make this work. But the people who don't get
namespaces (a huge proportion of those publishing content or build the
content content generation tools that were used in the last decade *on the
public web*) have convinced us* that this is not an option for HTML.

On the other hand, a log of programming languages manage to run a compiler  
that recognises arbitrary elements based on a grammar and an "import"  
declaration of some kind.

In other words, they use a simplistic namespace mechanism (without the  

*For some definition of us. For those who have worked happily with  
namespaces over the last decade, writing HTML5 as XHTML is a reasonable  
option, if the browsers don't scrap their XML capability.



Chaals - standards declaimer
Received on Monday, 13 August 2012 10:39:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:38 UTC