W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-data-tf@w3.org > December 2011

Re: HTML Data Guide draft

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:15:13 +0000
Cc: HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <513DEFD1-A213-4535-99A0-A90DD24E56BA@jenitennison.com>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>

I've pushed out changes that I believe address the points you raise below [1].

The wording around the role of publishing guidance is the hardest to get right because there needs to be a balance between the fact that in many organisations there are publishing guidelines that people reading this document may not be able to change, and that it is idiotic for those guidelines to constrain those people to backwards technology choices. Please read [2] and see whether that looks better to you, or suggest an alternative wording.



[1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/htmldata/default/html-data-guide/index.html
[2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/htmldata/raw-file/default/html-data-guide/index.html#publishers

On 19 Dec 2011, at 11:11, Henri Sivonen wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote:
>>  https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/htmldata/raw-file/default/html-data-guide/index.html
>> Please take the time to read this as it is the main product of this Task Force, and raise any comments here.
> * Various places say "browser plug-ins". "Plug-ins" typically mean
> NPAPI or ActiveX plug-ins. AFAICT, work in this space has happened in
> browser *extensions* rather than plug-ins.
> * Was RDFa really originally designed for XHTML 1.1 instead of
> XHTML2? I thought it was designed for XHTML2 and was backported to
> XHTML 1.1. http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/02/xhtml-rdf.html omits
> namespace declarations in the host language but mentions XHTML2 in
> passing as a rationale for a design decision.
> *  "All three syntaxes follow the same general data model." I think
> that's an overstatement. The formats do differ in terms of how
> entities can be composed into larger structures (graphs vs. trees).
> * "if your publishing guidelines require validity against an older
> version of HTML" "If your publishing guidelines require validity
> against XHTML" Those are terrible reasons to do something. While it
> might be realistic to acknowledge that some organizations self-impose
> nonsensical guidelines, I think this guide should avoid implying that
> backward-looking self-imposed guidelines are a reasonable input into
> format choice. (Instead, the format choice should be treated as an
> input into the organization's guidelines.)
> * "Some older browsers may move" advice formulated like this tends to
> live on as a cargo cult long after the browsers in question have faded
> out of use. Please be specific about which browser versions do this so
> that the piece of advice comes with data that readers can use to
> determine if the issue is still relevant.
> -- 
> Henri Sivonen
> hsivonen@iki.fi
> http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

Jeni Tennison
Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2011 10:15:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:06 UTC