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

Producing Atom (was: Microdata vocabulary specifications)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 14:43:50 -0400
Message-ID: <4AC8ECE6.4000605@intertwingly.net>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>> On Oct 3, 2009, at 6:52 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>>> As part of the recent Microdata update, I removed the predefined 
>>>>> vocabularies from HTML5. Would the working group like these 
>>>>> vocabularies to be published as separate deliverables of the HTMLWG?
>>>> I think that would be a good idea. If the working group is agreeable, 
>>>> I'll propose that removing predefined vocabularies and publishing them 
>>>> separately should be the resolution to ISSUE-73. 
>>>> <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/73>
>>> I assume that this means that HTML5 would not reference these new 
>>> documents, or, if it would, just informatively?
>> I've updated the spec and generated the three new specs, and the HTML5 
>> spec does not reference the new documents.
>>
>> (I also took out the various features of HTML5 that previously used those 
>> vocabularies, so e.g. HTML5 no longer supports drag-and-drop of 
>> microdata-annotated vCards to programs like AddressBook.app.)
> 
> (Incidentaly, a side-effect of this is that the HTML-to-Atom conversion 
> algorithm can no longer output valid Atom. It used to rely on the vCard 
> vocabulary to get the value of <author>, but this is no longer possible 
> since there's no reference to the vocabulary specs.)

re: "no longer possible"... why not?

In particular, what would be the harm in allowing conforming 
implementations to add additional information as long as they continue 
to provide all of the information required by the algorithm?

Furthermore, why couldn't additional specifications define additional 
information to be placed into the feed?

- Sam Ruby
Received on Sunday, 4 October 2009 18:44:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:49 GMT