I'm inclined to agree with Glen here on a couple of points.

1) The exact form of the namespacing mechanism isn't so important as the
fact that there is a mechanism in place. While not everyone will use
namespaces (and to be honest that should be seen as a requirement, that any
namespace proposal should account for that 90% case that Tab laid out
earlier where namespaces are an encumbrance) I think that the sooner such a
namespacing mechanism be put into place, the sooner that it can be adopted
by the 10% who do in fact have significant need for namespaces (semantic
web being the biggest use case I can think of at the top of my head).

2) I tend to distrust public registries - they add a layer of complexity
and often are underutilized when finally implemented. I'm more inclined to
see something like a namespace bundle or package that can be written in
JSON in some kind of standardized format. Node's *npm* might be a good
model there. This creates a set of bound key prefixes for a given site that
can in turn be associated with corresponding "namespaced globals" and
extended HTML elements. I'd have to think about this a bit, but I could see
this both as a way to allow for large organizations to manage its widget
usage within web apps.

Kurt Cagle
Principle Evangelist, Semantic Technologies
Avalon Consulting, LLC
kurt.ca...@gmail.com, personal
cag...@avalonconsult.com, business

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglaz...@google.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 4:05 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.bars...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Dimitri - if someone wants to provide input (f.ex. requirements ) for
>> this API, should they add them to the above bug (or do you recommend else)?
> Yep. That's a good place.
> :DG<

Reply via email to