[whatwg] comments section 1
lachlan.hunt at lachy.id.au
Tue Mar 20 20:10:35 PDT 2007
Daniel Glazman wrote:
> Subject: [whatwg] comments section 1
FYI, section numbers are subject to change (they have done several times
over the spec's development). It would be more useful if you used the
section title. It will make it less confusing if they change between
now and the time Hixie gets to your feedback.
> 1.4. The single fact that HTML v5 needs to use a 1999 namespace already
> used by earlier versions of the language indicates that namespaces
> are a rather bad solution to the problems they're trying to
> solve... Conclusion : follow that path and imagine something
That's the W3C's fault for for putting a date in the namespace URI,
instead of something more sensible like they have now done for XBL2 .
That is not one of the problems with namespaces in general, only a
problem with that URI. But we can't change the XHTML namespace without
breaking backwards compatibility, so we're stuck with it.
More information about the whatwg