W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: Publish HTML5, RDFa heartbeats and Microdata, 2D Context and H:TML as FPWDs

From: Krzysztof Maczyński <1981km@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:01:03 +0100
Message-ID: <709ED05F7B8D44A9908D49DEE0817EE7@kmPC>
To: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
> HTML 5: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/
I support this publication because of the hearbeat requirement.
> HTML+RDFa: http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/
I support this publication because of the hearbeat requirement and sufficiently significant improvements made. Although I still believe this deliverable would better be transferred to the RDFa WG, its charter doesn't currently include it, so let's continue with it here at this time. RDFa is an established and generic technology, so it seems understandable that groups responsible for particular markup languages (in our case, HTML) integrate it, preferably with separate small specs.
> HTML Microdata: http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/
I oppose this publication. A new endeavour in the area of extensible annotaions and embedding of semantics is not within a direct interpretation of our charter. W3C already works on RDFa which is an established technology satisfying Microdata's use cases. The advantages Microdata seeks to provide over RDFa 1.0 should inform (and they actually do, despite Microdata proponents' lack of good will to cooperate) RDFa 1.1. We should not support the interests of parties which want to fragment the market, prevent RDFa from achieving more success and torment the whole field of Semantic Web. Microdata was created as a step towards this goal by people wishing RDFa's use cases not to be satisfied or at least be so in a maligned and quirky way.
> HTML Canvas 2D Context: http://dev.w3.org/html5/2dcontext/
There is an alternative draft by Doug Schepers and Eliot Graff. It seems to me that no conclusion has reached on the issue of integrating the two. Therefore I don't support this publication at this time but may well do so in the future (there's no heartbeat requirement). Our charter doesn't call for it and I want to ensure broad consensus and participation, for which the HTML WG is in my opinion too limited. I know the decision from before I joined the WG that this API was in scope. But there are other groups in the W3C which are better suited for this work. I suggest asking the WGs in the Graphics Activity, Style Activity and the XSL-FO Subgroup if they'd like to develop it with us in a task force.
> HTML: The Markup Language: http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/
I support this publication because it is a step in the right direction of splitting the HTML5 spec in a sane way. I envision for it a Rec status and the leading role among the set resulting from further splits.
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/html4-differences/
I support this publication because of the hearbeat requirement.

Best regards,

Krzysztof Maczyński
Received on Wednesday, 10 February 2010 21:01:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:14 UTC