- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:13:26 +0100
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 17:58:36 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > | Namespace proliferation is a problem. Even fairly modest documents now > | require a huge raft of declarations at the top. As the author of an > | O'Reilly book on XForms, I can report that 90% of the technical > | questions from readers involve confusion related to namespaces. > - http://www.w3.org/2004/04/webapps-cdf-ws/papers/verity.html Interesting, as that's not my experience in other XML languages, even when introducing RDF to users don't seem to have that problem, and they're positively crazy with me, I guess we're just looking at different users. > IE6 is only a concern because compatibility with IE6 is a concern of Web > authors. The main motivation of WF2 (and all of WHATWG) is authors. Right, Then I think it would be good if you could get some Authoring Tool companies on board, they'll have useful things to say I'm sure. > > no-one's yet explained how HTML 4 and XHTML 1 really create a migration > > path, could you explain now perhaps? > > XHTML 1.0 appendix C claims to describe such a migration path. Yes, but it doesn't - so I guess you're conceding there isn't one - why not just an HTML vocabulary though (then you don't need to pollute namespaces you don't control) > > Yes, but you've still not told us the roadmap > > * Publish WF2 snapshot this weekend. > * Iterate WF2 until we agree it is as good as we're going to get it > without real-world experience. > * Create WF2 test suite. > * Create WF2 experimental implementations, to obtain implementation > feedback. > * Update the spec based on implementation feedback. > * Submit WF2 to standards organisation as basis for HTML extensions. Great, any idea how long this might take? CSS 2.1 timescales? Jim.
Received on Friday, 25 June 2004 02:13:26 UTC