- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:30:19 -0500
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 13:41 +0300, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Oct 19, 2007, at 12:46, T.V Raman wrote: > > > I dont believe we need go down the ugliness of inventing a second > > namespacing mechanism because some dont like the current one; > > I agree we shouldn't invent a second namespacing mechanism. I think > we should do ARIA without a technical namespacing mechanism at all > and only use a naming convention for spec organization without the > parsing and DOM layers knowing anything about it. > > It's not about not liking the current XML namespacing mechanism. It's > about the current XML one being unsupported in already shipped text/ > html implementations. It follows that introducing it now to text/html > would create a scripting discrepancy between legacy and new browsers. > We don't want that, so we are stuck with no Namespaces in XML-style > namespaces in HTML. Perhaps you don't want that... I don't think I want that either... but when you say "we don't want that", would you please clarify which "we"? Perhaps cite a source? I have seen substantial lack of consensus about what we want with respect to compatibility and versioning. Re: HTML version issue summary? From: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:16:58 -0700 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/1408.html The discussion of it in the context of design principles doesn't seem to have converged, but perhaps I'm mis-reading what you're saying? Perhaps you're appealing to something covered in the compatibility section? http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-design-principles/Overview.html#compatibility -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 19 October 2007 17:29:46 UTC