- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:55:23 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Ennals, Robert" <robert.ennals@intel.com>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010, Julian Reschke wrote: > > a) Defining an extensibility model should take avoiding syntax clashes > into account. Sure. It should also take into account not introducing security problems, but that doesn't mean sandbox="" is in scope for ISSUE-41. It should also avoid being inaccessible, but that doesn't mean changes to ARIA are in scope for ISSUE-41. Unfortunately since nobody will say what problem ISSUE-41 is trying to solve, it's impossible for me to deteremine what _is_ in scope. I continue to think it is a huge procedural mistake to have such a poorly- defined and open-ended issue on the table. > b) Clarifying: so you assume that there'll always be an HTML WG to > coordinate this? If HTML becomes so unimportant that there's no longer a need to maintain it, then vendor-specific experimental extensions aren't likely to be created, much less clash with each other. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 16 March 2010 21:55:52 UTC