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
      better.

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 [1]. 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.

[1] http://www.w3.org/ns/xbl
--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/

Reply via email to