Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
>> the right problem being having a namespaces-like mechanism >> that the HTML working group would be happy with. > > No, the HTML WG has to come up with a mechanism that the rest of the > community is happy with (or at least, is prepared to live with). If they > fail to do so, they will fail. Eh?? The XML community cannot pretend to be or speak for the HTML community. There is no push to change namespaces except for HTML by the HTML WG. So we can expect the XML community to block any changes unless the changes offer some *significant* benefit. The support of the HTML WG is necessary, if not sufficient. I think the key issue is non-distruptiveness. The XML side won't accept something that is too disruptive on balance; and the HTML side is to some extent saying that Namespaces have proved too disruptive for HTML to swallow. (My own opinion is that this is all a side-effect of the W3C's intense desire to avoid anything like a long-term plan or a co-ordinated strategy. For example, what if 2000 the HTML group had decided that by 2010 HTML parsers should accept full XML, including qualified names? We would be in the position now where the syntax could catch up with the APIs and objects, rather than being constrained in them. Instead, we only get short-term considerations that is out-of-step with the long-term technological cycle.) Cheers Rick
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
