W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > July 2009

Re: [Wikitech-l] Proposal: switch to HTML 5

From: Sergey Chernyshev <sergey.chernyshev@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 17:41:32 -0400
Message-ID: <9984a7a70907081441r3cbe2018u7cc2d95fec4a41d1@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Sergey
> Chernyshev<sergey.chernyshev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm only considering the projects I was going to work on and can't talk
> for
> > all the things MediaWiki team should have in mind - I was going to add
> > support for RDFa (http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/) which currently is
> W3C
> > Recomendation, but only for XHTML and even though HTML profiles (or
> whatever
> > they are called) are in the works they are not ready yet.
> >
> > Switching to non-recomendation will mean that implementing RDFa in
> standard
> > compliant form will have to be postponed for quite a while.
>
> I'm pretty sure this will be resolved within a matter of months, one
> way or another.  Either Ian will cave and support RDFa, or RDFa will
> support HTML 5 (at least in a usable draft form) without HTML 5's
> explicit agreement, or microdata will gain support as wide as RDFa.
> At worst, you can still use MW 1.15 while things are being worked out.
>  Or maybe we could provide a switch to allow HTML 5 or XHTML, but I'm
> leery of that, since it negates most of the benefits.
>
> I admit that I don't follow RDF and "semantic web" stuff too closely,
> so I'm not very qualified to address this objection.  I'm pretty sure
> that RDFa support is not an issue for the overwhelming majority of our
> users, however.  On the other hand, improved <video> support and
> better form handling for a significant percentage of our users are
> examples of clear and concrete benefits from HTML 5.


I see your point - video is clearly more popular then RDFa and if you're
willing to go off-standard to support it, it's might be a reasonable
decision for a site like Wikipedia. Not sure what is the rush for that and
why can't it wait till HTML 5 spec becomes a recommendation.

I'm not that familiar with HTML 5 support in modern browsers to state that
there are going to be regressions with some other things, but it might be
another thing to consider, although Wikipedia might be big enough to be a
driving force in such decisions.


> Is this actually a *practical* problem even for the very small number
> of users who want to use RDFa?  I mean, will RDFa really not work with
> HTML 5 in practice, or will it work but it's not standardized?


Sorry, can't give you a definitive answer - CCing RDFa list for this.

Guys, will be happy if you provide where RDFa support stands here.

 > As for commotion I mentioned, I believe there is at least tension between
> > RDFa world and "Microdata" world that is being pushed along HTML 5 spec.
>
> Yes, there definitely is tension there!  Just not between HTML 5 and
> XHTML 2 -- that's over, even if a few people might not have gotten the
> message yet.  I don't know what will happen with RDFa vs. microdata.
> I find it unlikely that anyone will convince Ian to include RDFa at
> this point with just arguments.  But if it sees much wider adoption
> than microdata, he'd probably include it.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2009 21:42:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 8 July 2009 21:42:14 GMT