[whatwg] comments section 1
daniel.glazman at disruptive-innovations.com
Tue Mar 20 20:39:54 PDT 2007
On 21/03/2007 04:10, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> 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.
Sure, no problem. Thanks for the hint.
>> 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 .
I never said the contrary :-)
> 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.
Again, never said the contrary. Being stuck with the xhtml namespace for
html 5 does not mean you cannot imagine another solution for other
More information about the whatwg