On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Julian Reschke wrote: > > Ian Hickson wrote: > > > On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Julian Reschke wrote: > > > > Ian Hickson wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Julian Reschke wrote: > > > > > > Does the spec specify how to parse or serialize a future element > > > > > > called > > > > > > "foobar"? > > > > > Yes. > > > > OK, where, specifically, is the serialization defined? > > > > > > It's not allowed. > > > > Wow, great. > > > > So I conclude that HTML5 does not address extensibility at all. I think > > it should. > > HTML5 does not provide for a way for groups other than the working group > to invent new elements, yes. Historically, such attempts have proved > somewhat disastrous -- <marquee>, <blink>, <spacer>, etc. In fact I am > hard-pressed to come up with any good example of an extension in the > element space that was benficial to the Web and wasn't developed by a > working group. I vigorously disagree with HTML5 WG appointing itself the gatekeeper to new elements in HTML5. I was informed on my blog that issue 41 afore the HTML5 WG is still open. http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/41. I'm not sure how to force this particular issue further in the HTML WG. Perhaps the HTML5 WG should do a formal vote on this issue to determine how to resolve this issue. Cheers, Dave
Received on Wednesday, 31 December 2008 05:39:51 UTC