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

Re: extensions to HTML

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:16:30 -0500
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFB35719BE.4451E852-ON0525766B.00695177-8525766B.0069E24C@lotus.com>
Jonathan Rees writes:

> 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 expect that innovation in this space will be bounded first and foremost 
by both the real and perceived need for compatibility with already 
deployed content, user agents, and other systems.  I think that's a 
shorthand for an economic argument about the costs of breaking those 
systems vs. the benefits of various extensions or extension hooks.

> Is there a document somewhere giving anyone's views or opinions on
> whether and how HTML5 will be extended?

There are a few hints in my TPAC presentation at [1].  Far from detailed 
or comprehensive, but at least suggestive of some of the forms.  Note 
things like FBML which are somewhat specific to particular environments. 
(As best I can tell, FBML works only in an XHTML container with 
namespaces.  See [2] for notes on the development and deployment model. 
Interesting:  I wonder whether FBML will emerge as a significant driver 
for use of XML serialization of HTML5?).

Noah


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Nov/0004.html
[2] http://wiki.developers.facebook.com/index.php/XFBML




--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
11/11/2009 01:54 PM
 
        To:     www-tag@w3.org
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        extensions to HTML


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 19:17:05 UTC

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