- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 02:59:31 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:10 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Henri Sivonen wrote: >> On Oct 12, 2009, at 10:51, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> Henri Sivonen wrote: >>>> ... >>>> By not using the same syntax for incompatible features. When you >>>> design an extension feature, Google for your tentative syntax >>>> first to see if others have used it already. >>>> ... >>> >>> I do not see how that scales. >> Alternatively, a would-be extender of the language could send email >> to public-html or the whatwg list announcing the intent to occupy a >> piece of syntax and allow for both peer review of the design and >> for potential existing users of the syntax to speak up. >> This doesn't need to scale to a huge number of extensions: Having a >> huge number of extensions would be bad for interop, and we >> shouldn't be designing for language extension dynamics that would >> harm interoperability. > > We're back at the Distributed Extensibility discussion. In any case, document-scope versioning is not a substitute for distributed extensibility. If two extensions to HTML use conflicting syntax, then a document-scope version (or feature use) declaration will not enable you to use both in the same document. This is true even if the extensions are different incompatible versions of the same extension. Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 12 October 2009 10:00:06 UTC