Re: Bringing other Web Components specs into HTML

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Jun 2013, Dirk Schulze wrote:
> >> On Jun 14, 2013, at 6:41 AM, "Robin Berjon" <robin@w3.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > now that <template> is in HTML, I was wondering if some of the 
> >> > other specs needed the same treatment.
> >>
> >> Some of the specs can be relevant for other specifications as well. 
> >> Unless you don't want to integrate the whole web stack (SVG, MathML, 
> >> ...) into the HTML spec, some things should be separated from HTML.
> >
> > I think the main deciding factor should be who is going to maintain 
> > the text once in the future. With <template>, presumably that's now us 
> > (HTML spec editors). For most Web component stuff, I assume it's still 
> > Dimitri and company. Thus they should probably stay in separate specs.
> 
> I think this is a nice rule of thumb. We could then refactor respective 
> specs to better integrate with each other by adding extension points and 
> removing monkeypatches.

Absolutely. There's a rich history of us adding hooks for each other in 
specs in this exact manner (e.g. see how the URL and DOM specs interact 
with the HTML spec, and vice versa).

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Sunday, 16 June 2013 21:25:51 UTC