- From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:44:44 -0800
- To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, <www-html@w3.org>
On 2/25/04 2:32 PM, "David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> I posit that the lack of namespaces was not in small part responsible for >> this success. That is to say, I would guess that every namespace added to >> a language will dramatically reduce it's ease of use for authors. I know > > I'd agree. I would too. > I refer to this effect as "single technology solutions". This is a common misconception. There is a difference between: 1. "single technology solutions" 2. "seamless multiple technology solutions" 3. "clumsy multiple technology solutions" I agree that new technologies that require (i.e. non-optional) use of a new namespaces fall into category 3. > EcmaScript, DOMs, and CSS are seen > as part of HTML in popular culture, And are a great example of category 2 above, not 1. > and can be included in the same > file, Ease of integration is certainly one axis to evaluate how "seamless" a multiple technology solution is. Tantek
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2004 18:44:58 UTC