- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 07:19:25 -0500
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:03:33 +0200, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Anne, but then don't we have the use of URIs with namespaces? The only >> difference is we specify the URI in one place and make a small, easy >> to use alias for use elsewhere. If anything forcing people to repeat >> an entire URI with each class name...that could add up, quickly and >> significantly. > > I wasn't aware that the concept of distributed extensibility or > decentralized extensibility came with a particular syntax. I'm not convinced > that authors will have trouble with long identifiers. I actually think > identifiers with a level of indirection will be more difficult to handle. > > >> And that doesn't account for the need to extend HTML with elements. >> Class names could possibly work as attributes, but not as elements. >> With namespaces we can create both elements and attributes. A superior >> option. > > For the widgets scenario one could just use data-* attributes. Also, a lot > of added complexity is not necessarily superior in my book. > > > -- > Anne van Kesteren > http://annevankesteren.nl/ > But data-* are neither decentralized, nor particularly extensible. In fact, we've determined in previous discussions that they're not meant to be used for anything other than by an author for a single author's needs. Shelley
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 12:19:58 UTC