This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 10741 - align @extension with @vendor--feature (Rob Ennals's ISSUE-41 prop)
Summary: align @extension with @vendor--feature (Rob Ennals's ISSUE-41 prop)
Status: RESOLVED NEEDSINFO
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: pre-LC1 HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC All
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: LC
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
URL: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/infrastr...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2010-09-26 00:37 UTC by Leif Halvard Silli
Modified: 2010-10-04 14:55 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Leif Halvard Silli 2010-09-26 00:37:20 UTC
Rob Ennals's Change Proposal suggests that foreign namespaces not officially part of HTML5, must have an @extension attribute:
    
    <my-root-element  xmlns="http://my-name-space/"  extension="extension" >

However, in light of the @vendor--feature construct (or @_vendor-feature, bug 9590 is still open), it seems reasonable to let the @extension attribute follow the same shape. E.g. instead of @extension one could use @xml--ns

    <my-root-element  xmlns="http://my-name-space/"  xml--ns="xml--ns"  >
Comment 1 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2010-09-28 07:20:34 UTC
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Did Not Understand Request
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: I don't understand. What part of the spec are you suggesting should be changed?