I created a prototype of this idea on github:
https://github.com/hfmanson/webcomponentsjs/blob/xml-namespace/README.md by
forking the original webcomponents.js project.
It contains a working example of this concept. Below the content of the
README.md file:
This fork of webcomponents.js enhances
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Kurt Cagle kurt.ca...@gmail.com wrote:
Tab,
I spend the vast majority of my time anymore in RDF-land, where namespaces
actually make sense (I'm not going to argue on the XML use of namespaces -
they are, agreed, ugly and complex). I know that when I've been at
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Rahly hungry.ra...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Kurt Cagle kurt.ca...@gmail.com wrote:
Tab,
I spend the vast majority of my time anymore in RDF-land, where
namespaces actually make sense (I'm not going to argue on the XML use of
On 5 February 2015 at 20:55, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Glen glen...@gmail.com wrote:
So in other words it *is* a case of it's good enough. Web components
are
quite possibly the future of the web, and yet we're implementing them to
be
good
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
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
* Domain names don't mean much. For example, Dublin Core's namespace
starts with http://purl.org/;, which is effectively meaningless.
It means that the owner of purl.org decided to allocate the namespace, as
opposed
Web Components are also JS. Any renaming you do in JS, you can do
just as easily in HTML.
+
No functionality is enabled by namespaces that can't be done without
them just as easily but with a little more verbosity.
So I can import a custom element and rename it even after it has been
On 2/4/15 4:41 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote
The proposed solution is using registries:
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24578
Thanks Dimitri.
Glen - FYI, I added a link to the thread you started to the above bug
(and embellished the bug's title a bit to reflect this thread).
The
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
So in other words it *is* a case of it's good enough. Web components
are quite possibly the future of the web, and yet we're implementing
them to be good enough in 90% of use cases?
jQuery is JavaScript which means that it's different for various reasons:
1. It's less important to keep the
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, real namespacing does eventually prove necessary as the
population grows. That's fine. It's something that can be added
organically as necessary; letting everything live in the null
namespace first doesn't harm
On 4 February 2015 at 22:31, Glen glen...@gmail.com wrote:
I know I'm rather late to the party, but I've been doing a lot of reading
lately about web components and related technologies, and the one thing
that confounds me is the fact that web components appear not to have any
real
I like the look of a colon, however it would quite probably conflict
with XML/XHTML so it's probably best to avoid it (although I am not an
expert).
A hyphen or maybe even a tilde (~) would likely be the better option.
ms-panel polymer-element a href=xxx x-controller=xxx
ms~panel
Tab,
I spend the vast majority of my time anymore in RDF-land, where namespaces
actually make sense (I'm not going to argue on the XML use of namespaces -
they are, agreed, ugly and complex). I know that when I've been at Balisage
or any of the W3 confabs, the issue of namespaces ex-XML has been
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Kurt Cagle kurt.ca...@gmail.com wrote:
Tab,
I spend the vast majority of my time anymore in RDF-land, where namespaces
actually make sense (I'm not going to argue on the XML use of namespaces -
they are, agreed, ugly and complex). I know that when I've been at
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Benjamin Goering b...@livefyre.com wrote:
Glad to see this. I was 'checking in' on the professional practicalities of
custom elements earlier this week, and was pretty bummed when I couldn't use
XHTML5 namespaces for my employer's organization.
I build widgets
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, real namespacing does eventually prove necessary as the
population grows. That's fine. It's something that can be added
organically as
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Glen glen...@gmail.com wrote:
So in other words it *is* a case of it's good enough. Web components are
quite possibly the future of the web, and yet we're implementing them to be
good enough in 90% of use cases?
jQuery is JavaScript which means that it's
I know I'm rather late to the party, but I've been doing a lot of
reading lately about web components and related technologies, and the
one thing that confounds me is the fact that web components appear not
to have any real namespacing.
Can someone explain why this is so, and what the
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Glen glen...@gmail.com wrote:
I know I'm rather late to the party, but I've been doing a lot of reading
lately about web components and related technologies, and the one thing
that confounds me is the fact that web components appear not to have any
real
It doesn't really matter whether or not it's based on (or at least
resembles) XML, as long as there is some way to specify (and redefine)
the prefix of custom elements.
G.
On 2015/02/04 23:39, Glenn Adams wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Glen glen...@gmail.com
Glen -
Glenn has the answer.
So we're going to come up with yet-another-registry rather than use one
that already exists and guarantees (at least as far can be guaranteed)
uniqueness: DNS.
The ramifications of not making HTML5 be XHTML5 will be with us for a very
long time indeed.
Cheers,
-
Can either of you provide an example in layman's terms?
I don't quite understand what this will look like.
G.
On 2015/02/05 00:29, William Edney wrote:
Glen -
Glenn has the answer.
So we're going to come up with yet-another-registry rather than use
one that already exists and guarantees
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Glen glen...@gmail.com wrote:
I know I'm rather late to the party, but I've been doing a lot of reading
lately about web components and related technologies, and the one thing that
confounds me is the fact that web components appear not to have any real
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Kurt Cagle kurt.ca...@gmail.com wrote:
I predict that sometime around 2025, we will end up redefining namespaces
because the number of jQuery-like components have ballooned into the
millions, the web has descended once again into a sea of interoperability,
and
I predict that sometime around 2025, we will end up redefining namespaces
because the number of jQuery-like components have ballooned into the
millions, the web has descended once again into a sea of interoperability,
and registries will, once again, have proven to be a bottleneck, as they
have
Glad to see this. I was 'checking in' on the professional practicalities of
custom elements earlier this week, and was pretty bummed when I couldn't
use XHTML5 namespaces for my employer's organization.
I build widgets all day. They run in inhospitable that websites I'm not in
control of. They
27 matches
Mail list logo
