- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 09:27:37 -0400
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com>, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Oct 3, 2009, at 5:28 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > >> Statements that I feel people can all agree to: >> >> 1) People (as in users and customers) have, do, and will continue to >> use "xmlns:" syntax in HTML, and have, do, and will continue to build >> tools that solve their perceived use cases based on this syntax. > > What's our goal for what we're calling "Decentralized extensibility"? > Is it to provide *any* form of extensibility that doesn't require > centralized coordination? Or is it to provide a syntax that uses > prefixes, colons as a separator, indirect prefix binding, URIs as > namespace identifiers, and xmlns attributes to declare prefixes? > > I get the sense that, for many people, only a solution that looks like > Namespaces in XML will satisfy. > > If that is indeed the case, should we rename this issue from > "Decentralized extensibility" to "XML-style namespace syntax"? At the present time, I don't care what the issue is called, but I don't see consensus on what the values of localName, prefix, namespaceURI (and possibly tagUrn) should return, and that's what I would like to see resolved. > Regards, > Maciej > >
Received on Saturday, 3 October 2009 13:28:18 UTC