- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:28:25 +0200
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:15:19 +0200, Sam Ruby <rubys at intertwingly.net> wrote: > [...] > > Like others, I'm not convinced that the way forward is to allow a new > attribute which has a micro-grammar for parsing what would be > represented in the DOM essentially as a character blob. That's fine. I'm merely pointing out that your suggested changes don't have the impact you desire. It may be better to just state what you want (which by now is probably pretty clear) and leave the editorial work to the editor (no offense). Having said that, I think I'd rather have something simple such as prefix_name for extensions made by ECMAScript libraries, etc. (As opposed to an in scope xmlns:prefix="http://..." with prefix:name extensions which work differently in XML.) That would also work better for element extensions. Not any of this should be allowed, but there seems to be some desire to have an ability to introduce "conforming" extension elements / attributes which are implemented using a script library. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2007 05:28:25 UTC