W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2009

extensions to HTML

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:54:57 +0100
Message-ID: <760bcb2a0911111054j35a19424o397a82c402b64ddc@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-tag@w3.org
Is there a document somewhere giving anyone's views or opinions on
whether and how HTML5 will be extended? I mean a neutral, predictive
account, of the form "publishers and browser developers (and other
producers and consumers) are likely to use and/or implement these
kinds of extensions and not these others," rather than "I'll do my
darnedest to make sure the Y does (or does not) happen" or "the
standard says XXX and people had better listen" or "of course things
would be better if YYY".

For example, one might say that addition of new elements and
attributes is likely to happen, but not changes in the lexical syntax
such as the addition of something like <% .... %> or allowing + in
element names. Or, one might say that there will be no extensions, or
that it's a free-for-all. (I have no idea whether any of these is
likely or not; these are just examples.)

The best supporting arguments in favor of any particular theory would
be economic, e.g. sunk cost, costs and benefits of extensions, cost of
keeping up with competitors' practices, etc.

I would find this useful. I assume the analysis has already been done,
that's why I'm not asking the question directly of this list.

Thanks
Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 11 November 2009 18:55:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:31 UTC