- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:46:33 -0800
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Cc: "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Hi Larry, On Jan 14, 2010, at 8:38 AM, Larry Masinter wrote: > I think where this discussion is leading me is: > > HTML has several different extension mechanisms. > Some traditional extensibility mechanisms (DOCTYPE version > extensions & DTDs, head/@profile with meta) have been > removed. > > Some new ones have been proposed and added > (microdata) or added under protest (RDFa). > > Some other ones are being dealt with a mysterious > "other specification" mechanism which isn't really > a mechanism since it isn't really defined. > (SVG and MathML). > > Some other namespace-like things are being discussed > but haven't been settled. > > One of the proposals shows how to add RDFa but > nothing else, there's a proposal for how to add Ruby > which we haven't talked about much. I don't remember > any discussions on how to add ITS. > > No one has talked much about how to unify these > extensibility mechanisms or enable a transition of > one to the other. > > I think if we were going to take the charter seriously, > we'd do more work on convergence. > > Is that a fair summary? Would you change it somehow? I think that in broad terms you are correct that we should consider extension mechanisms more generally, and see if any broadly powerful ones need to be added. I believe that is covered under ISSUE-41 decentralized-extensibility, where we have had much discussion and soon will need to convert our thinking into concrete proposals. I'm not sure I agree entirely with all of your specific comments, but I'm thinking I will save that commentary for the ISSUE-41 discussion. Regards, Maciej
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 16:47:07 UTC