- From: Rob Ennals <rob.ennals@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 16:54:43 -0800
Ug. s/compremise/compromise/ s/Ron Ennals/Rob Ennals/ I'm tired... -Rob On Nov 5, 2009, at 4:50 PM, Rob Ennals <rob.ennals at gmail.com> wrote: > [this is Ron Ennals from Intel, posting from gmail on my phone while > at tpac] > > I've talked to a few people about the distibuted extensibility > problem and I'd like to suggest a possible compremise: > > * maintain a central registry of prefixes with standard meanings - > so eg fb always means fbml. Thus no namespace decl is needed. > * for a prefixed node the prefix is itself the namespace - thus the > user agent doesn't need to know what a prefix means > * prefixes are allowed for tags and attributes > * a web browser MUST ignore prefix tags and attributes - they are > for data, just like microdata and data attributes, not for browser > extensions > > > I believe this satisfies the most important requirement for the > people who like namespaces and the people who don't. In particular: > > Reasons why namespaces etc are good: > * allow data on a page without worrying about name clashes > * copy and paste data from existing XML files into HTML > * support markup like fbml, rails, etc - on the client as well as > server > * allow companies to include their own XML data inside an HTML file, > for processing with other tools > > Reasons why namespaces are bad: > * copy and paste breaks > * the meaning of a tag depends on what namespaces you have > * the encourage incompatible extentions to the browser > * long namespace urls are horrible > > I've pitched this idea about a bit and got tentative buy in from > some (but not all) people on both sides of the namespace divide. > > This idea is unashamedly derived from Liam Quin's similar proposal, > tweaking the bits some people didn't like. > > > Comments/bugs/stupidities... ??? > > > [I'll probably post this to public-HTML too later, but I can't do > that from gmail on my phone] > > -Rob
Received on Thursday, 5 November 2009 16:54:43 UTC