W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Publishing a new draft (HTML5+RDFa)

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:56:10 -0400
Message-ID: <4A70EFAA.5000706@digitalbazaar.com>
To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
CC: RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> Larry Masinter wrote:
>> My objection would be satisfied if we also simultaneously published
>> Mike Smith's document and/or Manu's fork as First Public Working
>> Drafts along with a clear public explanation of the process we
>> are now engaging.

Clarifying...

I don't see the HTML5+RDFa draft as a "fork" of the HTML5 specification.
We should be very careful with the language we're using with the general
public. To Joe Webdeveloper, a "fork" could imply permanent deviation. I
don't think that is the intent of the HTML5+RDFa draft, nor do I think
that is Mike's goal with his document.

If we must use a word to describe the process, we might want to use "a
branch of the HTML5 specification", or "additional/alternate features
for the HTML5 specification". Branching implies the intent to merge with
the main body of work at a later point in time, which we should be very
clear about our intent to do so.

> Publishing an FPWD is a bigger deal than publishing a WD. First, FPWD
> triggers a patent review clock where an ordinary working draft does not
> (the next step after FPWD to trigger a patent review time limit is Last
> Call). Thus I don't think fast track lazy consensus is appropriate for
> FPWD, as opposed to a normal Working Draft. And indeed, for the FPWD of
> the current HTML5 draft, we held a formal vote and even delayed some
> time after that for closer examination of objections from IBM and
> Microsoft reps, among others.

This shouldn't be a major issue for HTML5+RDFa because we've already had
to go through the patent review cycle and W3C ritualistic blessing of
chickens with XHTML+RDFa. :P

Since HTML5+RDFa just references the XHTML+RDFa specification for most
everything, I wouldn't expect it to take as long as the current HTML5
draft did... but then again, I don't know the details of the FPWD process.

> Second, for a new document to be published as a Working Draft, Sam has
> asked for at least three independent supporters. I don't think we've
> done that assessment for either of the documents you cite.

I don't know what that assessment would consist of, but we might want to
count the number of people taking part in the conversation on the RDFa
mailing list regarding HTML5+RDFa, since we're actively discussing
HTML5+RDFa issues on that mailing list right now. Or we could do a poll.

How was this done for the current HTML5 draft? A poll?

[ ] I support the HTML5+RDFa work and would like to see RDFa
    incorporated into the HTML5 specification.
[ ] I do not support the HTML5+RDFa work and would like it removed from
    the HTML5 specification.

> And finally, I don't think the author of either of the alternative
> drafts has stated their readiness to publish a First Public Working
> Draft yet.

There are still some things that are being actively discussed on the
RDFa mailing list regarding HTML family issues (HTML5 is one of those
languages), but the HTML5+RDFa FPWD could be readied in a very short
time, if needed.

We'll discuss this on the RDFa Task Force call tomorrow.

> While I'm sure all of the above obstacles can be overcome, I don't think
> we should miss our heartbeat requirement while waiting to deal with them.

I agree with Maciej, I don't think we should couple Ian's HTML5 WD, the
HTML5+RDFa WD, and Mike's document together. No idea what that does to
the W3C Process, but building heartbeat dependencies between these
alternate specs seems like it may get complicated as the number of
alternate specifications grow.

If however, others would like to accelerate the HTML5+RDFa draft being
published sooner than later, I can change my priorities to have it ready
in a couple of days.

Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Larry Masinter wrote:
>> [...] a new draft of the Hixie fork
>
> Just out of interest, who did I fork the spec _from_, if the document
> I'm editing is a fork?

I believe that Larry meant your "branch", which is the main branch. So this:


            +----------- HTML5+RDFa (Manu's branch)
            |
------------+----------- HTML5 (Ian's branch - mainline)

------------------------ HTML5 Markup (Mike's branch - mainline)

I think you know this, though, so I don't get your question. Were you
asserting that you have the mainline branch and I branched from you?

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Bitmunk 3.1 Released - Browser-based P2P Commerce
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/06/29/browser-based-p2p-commerce/
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 00:56:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:42 GMT