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

Re: Publishing a new draft (HTML5+RDFa)

From: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:32:08 -0700
Message-ID: <81414305F94748E39A30DE5606D4898B@joe1446a4150a8>
To: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "Manu Sporny" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>, "RDFa mailing list" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>


> I don't think any of the three HTML5 specs are "finished."

... "finished".
of better yet, avoid and used something like: ..."finished" works.

But I agree. The only thing I am concerned with is that there are 
three.
The other two should be shown directly as diffs from Ian's current ED.

> I believe that all three should be published for the heartbeat 
> requirement.

For this to even be feasible we must have 100% assurance that we can 
tell the difference of one from another. Ian is constantly responding 
to and filtering reported bugs and edit requests that get somewhat 
documented on this list and results in updating the official draft. In 
addition, other proposals just as important are submited (see proposed 
update to embedded content RE: HTML WG Issue tracker ACTION-131 Draft 
ALT spec).
I think it is great that several people can push the buttons to 
produce a new 'complete' draft independent of the single official ED 
at any moment  but I would hope for only one complete 'official' 
public draft under review that is accompanied by candidate keystrokes, 
layouts, and editing instructions addressed to the WG for review and 
approval.

To me, it seems like the best experiment would be to pop the uf out to 
freestand alongside freestand rdfn. Then if it became desirable, the 
final content could be dropped back in. Not a minor editing process, 
but probably doable.

Thanks and Best Regards,
Joe 
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 17:33:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 31 July 2009 17:33:04 GMT