- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:29:04 -0500
- To: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
- CC: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "public-xhtml2@w3.org" <public-xhtml2@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
Chris Wilson wrote: > Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net] wrote: >> [IE] apparently has user requirements for namespaces. Enough so >> that they chose to expand namespace support in IE8. > > Sort of. We have had (in the past as well, imo, in the future) a > requirement for decentralized extensibility - that is, that > document/content authors can extend the set of elements with their > own semantic or behavioral elements. I continue to think there is a > requirement for that. (One might well ask why we didn't implement > full XML in that case; I'll politely not answer from a historical > context, but will point out that the draconian error handling and > poor fallback story make delivering content in XML in the browser a > poor solution in the ecosystem today.) I offer the following in the spirit of "no solution will make everybody happy". Anne has sometimes talked about an XHTML5 which was based not on XML1.0 but rather on something he refers to as XML5. http://code.google.com/p/xml5/ http://annevankesteren.nl/2007/10/xml5 I think that solution merits further exploration. - Sam Ruby
Received on Saturday, 7 March 2009 01:29:41 UTC