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

Re: Concerns about new section "predefined vocabularies"

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 12:42:14 +0200
Message-ID: <4A168186.8090903@gmx.de>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On May 22, 2009, at 12:32, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>> On May 22, 2009, at 11:23, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>> I have no problem with people trying to specify this *somewhere*, 
>>>> but I do have a big issue with this being done in HTML5.
>>> Do you have a suggestion on where "somewhere" would be, concretely?
>>
>> A separate What WG spec?
> 
> If the W3C flavor of HTML5 can delegate it's pre-defined microdata 
> vocabulary management to the WHATWG, this seems to be a possibility.

No delegation is needed. This should be orthogonal.

>> A W3C Note?
> 
> By which WG?

Does it need a WG? Also, is *this* WG chartered to do this?

> Regardless of which WG, Process-wise it seems like a bad idea to move 
> normative matter into "the accountability free realm of Working Group 
> Notes" (to quote Björn Höhrmann).

I'm not convinced this needs to be normative. At least not at this point.

>> An IETF document?
> 
> 
> It would be highly unusual for a W3C spec to delegate upper layers to 
> the IETF rather than delegating lower layers.

Unusual, but it has happened (for instance, RFC2731).

Anyway: just because it may not be obvious where to standardize this 
stuff elsewhere doesn't mean it belongs into HTML5.

BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 22 May 2009 10:43:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:37 GMT