Re: History Re: [webcomponents] Template element parser changes => Proposal for adding DocumentFragment.innerHTML
On Fri, 11 May 2012 19:57:37 +0200, Rafael Weinstein wrote: It was wrong for me to editorialize about SVG and MathML -- and "punish" was very poor word choice. I apologize to anyone who was insulted. It certainly wasn't my intent. I should have just said that I'm frustrated with the world we've arrived in WRT HTML vs XML and left it at that. Fair enough... cheers On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: On Fri, 11 May 2012 10:55:27 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote: On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Rafael Weinstein wrote: I'm very much of a like mike with Henri here, in that I'm frustrated with the situation we're currently in WRT SVG & MathML & parsing foreign content in HTML, etc... In particular, I'm tempted to feel like SVG and MathML made this bed for themselves and they should now have to sleep in it. I think that characterization is unfair to MathML. The math working group tried hard to avoid local name collisions with HTML. They didn't want to play namespace games. As I understand it, they were forced into a different namespace by W3C strategy tax arising from the "NAMESPACE ALL THE THINGS!" attitude. Actually, I think even that is an unfair characterisation. At the time both these technologies were developed (mid-late 90s) everyone assumed that XML was the path of the future for everything, and that de-crentralised extensibility was a critical requirement for a powerful web platform. Given that scenario, it is unclear whether there is a better approach. The current HTML approach of "if it is important it will get into the mainline spec" effectively breaks the key extensibility assumption. Leading implementors like Adobe, SodiPodi and Inkscape all introduced namespaced content all over the SVG map - in many cases doing things that active SVG WG members thought were excessive. Likewise Microsoft Office (at the time probably as widespread as "web browsers" in general) introduced namespaced content all over HTML (IE didn't support XHTML). Seven years later, both of those assumptions came under attack from the nascent WHAT-WG approach to updating HTML - but unlike the case for HTML, where the market leader had clearly resisted implementing XHTML, SVG in particular was backed by a number of XML-happy engines. It was several more years before SVG and MathML were incorporated into HTML in a way that clearly made sense. Punishing people, or even ridiculing them, for using XML in the late 90s, seems counter-productive at best. Outside HTML even Microsoft - who were one of the big creative forces behind XML - were pushing it everywhere, it was considered de riguer for making the mobile web a possibility outside Opera (which supported it anyway, but didn't require it), and it had, and still has, huge deployment. It just failed on the "web browser" platform, for reasons that are far easier to see in hindsight than they were at the time. cheers Chaals -- Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan noen norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com -- Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan noen norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Re: History Re: [webcomponents] Template element parser changes => Proposal for adding DocumentFragment.innerHTML
It was wrong for me to editorialize about SVG and MathML -- and "punish" was very poor word choice. I apologize to anyone who was insulted. It certainly wasn't my intent. I should have just said that I'm frustrated with the world we've arrived in WRT HTML vs XML and left it at that. On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > On Fri, 11 May 2012 10:55:27 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote: > >> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Rafael Weinstein >> wrote: >>> >>> I'm very much of a like mike with Henri here, in that I'm frustrated >>> with the situation we're currently in WRT SVG & MathML & parsing >>> foreign content in HTML, etc... In particular, I'm tempted to feel >>> like SVG and MathML made this bed for themselves and they should now >>> have to sleep in it. >> >> >> I think that characterization is unfair to MathML. The math working >> group tried hard to avoid local name collisions with HTML. They >> didn't want to play namespace games. As I understand it, they were >> forced into a different namespace by W3C strategy tax arising from the >> "NAMESPACE ALL THE THINGS!" attitude. > > > Actually, I think even that is an unfair characterisation. At the time both > these technologies were developed (mid-late 90s) everyone assumed that XML > was the path of the future for everything, and that de-crentralised > extensibility was a critical requirement for a powerful web platform. > > Given that scenario, it is unclear whether there is a better approach. The > current HTML approach of "if it is important it will get into the mainline > spec" effectively breaks the key extensibility assumption. Leading > implementors like Adobe, SodiPodi and Inkscape all introduced namespaced > content all over the SVG map - in many cases doing things that active SVG WG > members thought were excessive. Likewise Microsoft Office (at the time > probably as widespread as "web browsers" in general) introduced namespaced > content all over HTML (IE didn't support XHTML). > > Seven years later, both of those assumptions came under attack from the > nascent WHAT-WG approach to updating HTML - but unlike the case for HTML, > where the market leader had clearly resisted implementing XHTML, SVG in > particular was backed by a number of XML-happy engines. It was several more > years before SVG and MathML were incorporated into HTML in a way that > clearly made sense. > > Punishing people, or even ridiculing them, for using XML in the late 90s, > seems counter-productive at best. Outside HTML even Microsoft - who were one > of the big creative forces behind XML - were pushing it everywhere, it was > considered de riguer for making the mobile web a possibility outside Opera > (which supported it anyway, but didn't require it), and it had, and still > has, huge deployment. It just failed on the "web browser" platform, for > reasons that are far easier to see in hindsight than they were at the time. > > cheers > > Chaals > > -- > Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group > je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan noen norsk > http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
History Re: [webcomponents] Template element parser changes => Proposal for adding DocumentFragment.innerHTML
On Fri, 11 May 2012 10:55:27 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote: On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Rafael Weinstein wrote: I'm very much of a like mike with Henri here, in that I'm frustrated with the situation we're currently in WRT SVG & MathML & parsing foreign content in HTML, etc... In particular, I'm tempted to feel like SVG and MathML made this bed for themselves and they should now have to sleep in it. I think that characterization is unfair to MathML. The math working group tried hard to avoid local name collisions with HTML. They didn't want to play namespace games. As I understand it, they were forced into a different namespace by W3C strategy tax arising from the "NAMESPACE ALL THE THINGS!" attitude. Actually, I think even that is an unfair characterisation. At the time both these technologies were developed (mid-late 90s) everyone assumed that XML was the path of the future for everything, and that de-crentralised extensibility was a critical requirement for a powerful web platform. Given that scenario, it is unclear whether there is a better approach. The current HTML approach of "if it is important it will get into the mainline spec" effectively breaks the key extensibility assumption. Leading implementors like Adobe, SodiPodi and Inkscape all introduced namespaced content all over the SVG map - in many cases doing things that active SVG WG members thought were excessive. Likewise Microsoft Office (at the time probably as widespread as "web browsers" in general) introduced namespaced content all over HTML (IE didn't support XHTML). Seven years later, both of those assumptions came under attack from the nascent WHAT-WG approach to updating HTML - but unlike the case for HTML, where the market leader had clearly resisted implementing XHTML, SVG in particular was backed by a number of XML-happy engines. It was several more years before SVG and MathML were incorporated into HTML in a way that clearly made sense. Punishing people, or even ridiculing them, for using XML in the late 90s, seems counter-productive at best. Outside HTML even Microsoft - who were one of the big creative forces behind XML - were pushing it everywhere, it was considered de riguer for making the mobile web a possibility outside Opera (which supported it anyway, but didn't require it), and it had, and still has, huge deployment. It just failed on the "web browser" platform, for reasons that are far easier to see in hindsight than they were at the time. cheers Chaals -- Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan noen norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
