W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2007

[whatwg] comments section 1

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 04:39:54 +0100
Message-ID: <4600A90A.5040902@disruptive-innovations.com>
On 21/03/2007 04:10, Lachlan Hunt wrote:

> FYI, section numbers are subject to change (they have done several times 
> over the spec's development).  It would be more useful if you used the 
> section title.  It will make it less confusing if they change between 
> now and the time Hixie gets to your feedback.

Sure, no problem. Thanks for the hint.

>> 1.4.  The single fact that HTML v5 needs to use a 1999 namespace already
>>       used by earlier versions of the language indicates that namespaces
>>       are a rather bad solution to the problems they're trying to
>>       solve... Conclusion : follow that path and imagine something
>>       better.
> 
> That's the W3C's fault for for putting a date in the namespace URI, 
> instead of something more sensible like they have now done for XBL2 [1]. 

I never said the contrary :-)

>  That is not one of the problems with namespaces in general, only a 
> problem with that URI.  But we can't change the XHTML namespace without 
> breaking backwards compatibility, so we're stuck with it.

Again, never said the contrary. Being stuck with the xhtml namespace for
html 5 does not mean you cannot imagine another solution for other
markup languages...

</Daniel>
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2007 20:39:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:53 UTC