Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

11423Re: [whatwg] Proposing URI Templates for WebForms 2.0

Expand Messages
  • Mark Nottingham
    Nov 1, 2008
      On 01/11/2008, at 6:44 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote:

      > Mark Nottingham>> This is good and I agree that in a perfect world,
      > more
      > flexibility would have been designed in from the start. However, to
      > put them
      > into the mix while the machine is running is a bit more complex;
      > there needs
      > to be something more compelling (there's that word again) to drive
      > adoption.
      >
      > Can you help me understand the comment on why "putting them into the
      > mix
      > while the machine is running is a bit more complex?" I guess I don't
      > understand either "while the machine is running" part and why it is
      > more
      > complex. What about it is more complex.

      Because you're not introducing your idea to a new proposal that will
      succeed or fail on its own merits; you're trying to get it into one of
      the most widely-used formats in the world. As such, the barrier to
      entry is higher; it has to be, or every idea that seems to be good
      would get in, and HTML5 would be even more incomprehensible than it is
      now.


      > Mark Nottingham>> If you can find cases where someone can reuse that
      > template in an unintended way -- e.g., a search engine, a client doing
      > automated things, a non-traditional browser, an intermediary -- I
      > think it'd
      > go a long way towards this.
      >
      > Hopefully the 3 examples I gave in my ealier email presents relevent
      > cases?

      Sorry, but no. Each of those, as Ian says, can be implemented with a
      very simple server-side script. Yes, it's true that this requires
      somebody to write the script, but I don't think that's a big enough
      win to justify new core syntax in HTML if there isn't a constituency
      for it beating down the door.

      To be clear, I'm somewhat playing devils' advocate here; I don't have
      any particular problem per se with your proposal, it's just that I'm
      wary of putting things into standards unless we're sure we need them.
      I don't (yet) hear people beating down Ian's door to include this, so
      it makes me suspicious.

      OTOH I just saw a message from Paul P go by, so maybe this little
      dialogue will help whip up the masses.

      *ahem*


      > Mark Nottingham>> And, if you can come up with those cases, why not
      > define
      > it as an extension (since it needs to be largely backwards-compatible
      > anyway)?
      >
      > What exactly is an HTML5 extension? Can you provide a link that
      > explains
      > this? I can't comment as to if it would be an acceptable substitute
      > until I
      > know more...
      >
      > Mark Nottingham>> If it takes off, you can have the satisfaction of
      > seeing
      > it incorporated into HTML6...
      >
      > Please PLEASE don't make us wait until 2032 or so for this! ;-)


      I'm not the person to ask that, but frankly if you want the
      functionality, go ahead and write the software, publish the site,
      release the browser plug-in; the standards will follow if the minds do.

      Cheers,


      --
      Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
    • Show all 25 messages in this topic