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/
