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

Re: Concerns about new section "predefined vocabularies"

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 11:12:47 -0400
Message-ID: <4A16C0EF.6040306@intertwingly.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> ...
>> Yes,
>>
>> but the hCard microformat isn't defined in the HTML spec.
>>
>> So, my issues are:
>>
>> Procedural - the WG is working on trying to find consensus on all 
>> sections of the spec; sections without consensus are to be removed (at 
>> least that's my understanding of the process). Also, the editor 
>> himself announced a "feature freeze" quite some time ago. So, why are 
>> we seeing these new sections without *any* prior discussion?
>>
>> Spec Size - the spec already is big, and there is no evidence that 
>> this needs to be specified *inside* the HTML5 spec.
>>
>> Extensibility - the current chapter copies terminology from RFC2426, 
>> but misses it's extensibility hooks, and thus fails to mention things 
>> that have been defined later, such as the IMPP type name.
>>
>> Parsing - for some types, parsing rules are being rephrased from 
>> RFC2426. There is a risk that they diverge.
>>
>> Versioning - the IETF is revising vCard, see 
>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev-07>. Is HTML5 
>> going to freeze the vocabulary at a version that the IETF is currently 
>> obsoleting?
>>
>> So, I do agree that it's a good exercise to define how to expose vCard 
>> data in RDFa and/or "microdata". But please do so in a separate 
>> document, and without ignoring current IETF work.
>>
>> BR, Julian
>> ...
> 
> I note there was no feedback on this. Does silence mean agreement here?

While I didn't mention your email by name, the question you pose here is 
an example of the one that I talked about here:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0161.html

> In the meantime, the "spec" also contains instructions how to convert 
> HTML to Atom, and a section about BibTeX (!).
> 
> I have no problem with people trying to specify this *somewhere*, but I 
> do have a big issue with this being done in HTML5.

This needs to be resolved prior to Last Call.  For now, lets focus on 
the content not the container.

> BR, Julian

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 22 May 2009 15:13:29 GMT

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