Re: Publishing a new draft (HTML5+RDFa)

> How was this done for the current HTML5 draft? A poll?
>
> [ ] I support the HTML5+RDFa work and would like to see RDFa
>    incorporated into the HTML5 specification.
> [ ] I do not support the HTML5+RDFa work and would like it removed 
> from
>    the HTML5 specification.
>

I guess those are great questions, but I think I don't have any idea 
of the scope or feasibility of what you are talking about. Do you have 
a plan for incorporating RDFa into the existing ED document? I mean, 
what are the steps you are going to take? Is this a new part or 
replacing an existing part?

I have been following the coversation somewhat, but I haven't seen any 
sort of statement of work, a plan, or schedule, or even a couple of 
sentences that precisly says these parts over here be good and these 
parts already in there be bad, with good links. As I said in another 
reply, at this point first just show me the new or replacement content 
with some details about how you would incorporate the update if this 
WG approved it.

Thanks Again and Best Regards,
Joe




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Manu Sporny" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
To: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Cc: "RDFa mailing list" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: Publishing a new draft (HTML5+RDFa)


> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> Larry Masinter wrote:
>>> My objection would be satisfied if we also simultaneously 
>>> published
>>> Mike Smith's document and/or Manu's fork as First Public Working
>>> Drafts along with a clear public explanation of the process we
>>> are now engaging.
>
> Clarifying...
>
> I don't see the HTML5+RDFa draft as a "fork" of the HTML5 
> specification.
> We should be very careful with the language we're using with the 
> general
> public. To Joe Webdeveloper, a "fork" could imply permanent 
> deviation. I
> don't think that is the intent of the HTML5+RDFa draft, nor do I 
> think
> that is Mike's goal with his document.
>
> If we must use a word to describe the process, we might want to use 
> "a
> branch of the HTML5 specification", or "additional/alternate 
> features
> for the HTML5 specification". Branching implies the intent to merge 
> with
> the main body of work at a later point in time, which we should be 
> very
> clear about our intent to do so.
>
>> Publishing an FPWD is a bigger deal than publishing a WD. First, 
>> FPWD
>> triggers a patent review clock where an ordinary working draft does 
>> not
>> (the next step after FPWD to trigger a patent review time limit is 
>> Last
>> Call). Thus I don't think fast track lazy consensus is appropriate 
>> for
>> FPWD, as opposed to a normal Working Draft. And indeed, for the 
>> FPWD of
>> the current HTML5 draft, we held a formal vote and even delayed 
>> some
>> time after that for closer examination of objections from IBM and
>> Microsoft reps, among others.
>
> This shouldn't be a major issue for HTML5+RDFa because we've already 
> had
> to go through the patent review cycle and W3C ritualistic blessing 
> of
> chickens with XHTML+RDFa. :P
>
> Since HTML5+RDFa just references the XHTML+RDFa specification for 
> most
> everything, I wouldn't expect it to take as long as the current 
> HTML5
> draft did... but then again, I don't know the details of the FPWD 
> process.
>
>> Second, for a new document to be published as a Working Draft, Sam 
>> has
>> asked for at least three independent supporters. I don't think 
>> we've
>> done that assessment for either of the documents you cite.
>
> I don't know what that assessment would consist of, but we might 
> want to
> count the number of people taking part in the conversation on the 
> RDFa
> mailing list regarding HTML5+RDFa, since we're actively discussing
> HTML5+RDFa issues on that mailing list right now. Or we could do a 
> poll.
>
> How was this done for the current HTML5 draft? A poll?
>
> [ ] I support the HTML5+RDFa work and would like to see RDFa
>    incorporated into the HTML5 specification.
> [ ] I do not support the HTML5+RDFa work and would like it removed 
> from
>    the HTML5 specification.
>
>> And finally, I don't think the author of either of the alternative
>> drafts has stated their readiness to publish a First Public Working
>> Draft yet.
>
> There are still some things that are being actively discussed on the
> RDFa mailing list regarding HTML family issues (HTML5 is one of 
> those
> languages), but the HTML5+RDFa FPWD could be readied in a very short
> time, if needed.
>
> We'll discuss this on the RDFa Task Force call tomorrow.
>
>> While I'm sure all of the above obstacles can be overcome, I don't 
>> think
>> we should miss our heartbeat requirement while waiting to deal with 
>> them.
>
> I agree with Maciej, I don't think we should couple Ian's HTML5 WD, 
> the
> HTML5+RDFa WD, and Mike's document together. No idea what that does 
> to
> the W3C Process, but building heartbeat dependencies between these
> alternate specs seems like it may get complicated as the number of
> alternate specifications grow.
>
> If however, others would like to accelerate the HTML5+RDFa draft 
> being
> published sooner than later, I can change my priorities to have it 
> ready
> in a couple of days.
>
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Larry Masinter wrote:
>>> [...] a new draft of the Hixie fork
>>
>> Just out of interest, who did I fork the spec _from_, if the 
>> document
>> I'm editing is a fork?
>
> I believe that Larry meant your "branch", which is the main branch. 
> So this:
>
>
>            +----------- HTML5+RDFa (Manu's branch)
>            |
> ------------+----------- HTML5 (Ian's branch - mainline)
>
> ------------------------ HTML5 Markup (Mike's branch - mainline)
>
> I think you know this, though, so I don't get your question. Were 
> you
> asserting that you have the mainline branch and I branched from you?
>
> -- manu
>
> -- 
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Bitmunk 3.1 Released - Browser-based P2P Commerce
> http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/06/29/browser-based-p2p-commerce/
>

Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 02:17:25 UTC