Thomas Zander <> wrote on 02/12/2009 02:12:03 PM:
>
> On Thursday 12. February 2009 18:01:00 ext wrote:
>
> > But I'm not sure I hear a constituency asking specifically for an
> > extensibility mechanism that can never be better than a throw-away.
>
> I think I put up my finger various times, didn't I?
> That would make KOffice and Qt/Nokia be constituencies that I talk for
which
> think this is still a good idea to have.
> Naturally this doesn't mean I am against anything better. I just oppose
the
> removal of a useful feature without proper replacement.
>
Let me re-phrase this. Losing extension data is not your intent. It is
something you are willing to accept, but the loss of data is not
specifically what you desire from the markup. You are looking for an
extensibility feature, not a data-loss feature. If another application
strips your extension data you do not care, but if they do not strip it
you will not be disappointed. It would not be considered a bad thing.
Am I representing your requirement correctly? If so, this is 100% met by
what we already have. But your requirement is also 100% by the an
extension model that facilitates preservation of extension data. It isn't
that I'm not hearing or considering your needs. I'm seeing it a proper
subset of preservable extension data. I'll take it as a good design that
we can meet both needs with a single extension model.
-Rob
