W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: Are web components *seriously* not namespaced?

From: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 17:00:11 -0800
Message-ID: <CALm0LSGXhHDpGz3u2+d2W2WZ6ZXVbP7GdQfbR3=y0h+VXt9bVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Glen <glen.84@gmail.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
I predict that sometime around 2025, we will end up redefining namespaces
because the number of jQuery-like components have ballooned into the
millions, the web has descended once again into a sea of interoperability,
and registries will, once again, have proven to be a bottleneck, as they
have EVERY SINGLE TIME they have been implemented.

Of course, they won't be called namespaces, and they'll probably use a dash
instead of a colon , and they definitely won't be XML based because
everyone knows that XML is EVIL ... (sigh) !

Kurt Cagle
Principle Evangelist, Semantic Technologies
Avalon Consulting, LLC
kurt.cagle@gmail.com, personal
caglek@avalonconsult.com, business
443-837-8725



On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Glen <glen.84@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I know I'm rather late to the party, but I've been doing a lot of reading
> > lately about web components and related technologies, and the one thing
> that
> > confounds me is the fact that web components appear not to have any
> "real"
> > namespacing.
>
> Prefix-based informal namespacing appears to be more than sufficient
> for 90%+ of use-cases.  It works fine, for example, for the huge
> collection of jQuery widgets/extensions.  Complicating things further
> simply isn't all that necessary.
>
> We do plan to help solve it at some point, as Dimitri says, as there
> are some cases where real namespacing is useful.  In particular, if
> you have a name that you can assume is globally unique with high
> confidence, you can actually share custom elements across documents.
> Within a single page, however, prefix-based informal namespaces are
> nearly always sufficient.
>
> XML Namespaces are a pox on the platform, however, and they'll
> definitely not get reproduced in custom elements.  They have a number
> of terrible affordances.
>
> ~TJ
>
>
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2015 01:01:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:27:25 UTC