Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 08:08:45PM +1000, rjelliffe@a... wrote: > >> the right problem being having a namespaces-like mechanism > >> that the HTML working group would be happy with. +1 > > 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. No, HTML isn't going away just because they introduce incompatibilities with some XML spec or other. > 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. There's some from other people too, although when doing the XIN stuff I did talk to a number of HTML and XHTML people first. > 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. ALso agree 100% > 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. Right. > (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? They (we) did exactly that - the problem is getting Web browsers and site developers to follow... So it turns out thatit's not that simple. Liam -- Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/ * http://www.fromoldbooks.org/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
