W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-xml@w3.org > January 2011

Re: HTML/XML Task Force Minutes 18 January 2011

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 12:31:13 -0500
Message-ID: <4D39C2E1.6080703@intertwingly.net>
To: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com>
CC: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>, Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>, public-html-xml@w3.org
On 01/21/2011 11:54 AM, Kurt Cagle wrote:
> Sam (and to the members on the list at large),
>
> My intent was not to be critical of the work being done here (I'm
> trying, really! (and read that as you will)). I /am/ saying that I think
> that a lot of the HTML5 specification, and comments from people on this
> list and elsewhere, has placed a definite emphasis on the relevance of
> HTML5 over that of the XML portion of the specification and whether the
> implications that it IS an XML document gets lost in HTML5
> considerations of the document. Additionally there have been a number of
> attempts to dismiss technologies such as XForms (and others) that
> apparently have no role in the HTML5 vision but that nonetheless are
> very real use cases for organizations which have invested heavily in XML
> production pipelines. My interest in this process is to assure that
> these use cases (and the organizations who have a stake in them) don't
> somehow get shoved under the rug.

As has been pointed out before, technologies such as XForms are not use 
cases.  Your work to date for the National Archives and potentially for 
the Library of Congress are.

That being said, not having taken a close look at the problem, XForms is 
probably compatible with XHTML5, particularly when implemented 
exclusively in a server side fashion.  It also is likely compatible with 
XHTML5 in a client side implementation (by that I mean content served as 
application/xhtml+xml augmented by JavaScript).

As to whether XForms are compatible with a client side implementation 
when embedded in content served as text/html, I know not.  I am aware of 
efforts in the past to do so... but I've since lost track of them.  It 
does seem likely to me that there will be a number of incompatibilities 
that will need significant work in order to resolve.

Speaking as a co-chair of the HTML WG: those people who wish to pursue 
such are welcome to participate in the working group.  From the 
perspective of the W3C, everybody in the WG is a volunteer.

Volunteers work on what interests them.  If there are use cases that 
nobody picks up, the root cause is a lack of volunteers.

I can't coerce you into volunteering.  But I can and will insist that if 
you wish to lay blame (and I include in that usages of phrases like "get 
shoved under the rug") that you point the finger not at the people who 
are doing constructive work but at those who could be but are not.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 21 January 2011 17:31:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 January 2011 17:31:57 GMT