W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2011

Re: publication infrastructure / respec

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:42:27 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=xVXbELfxRJ2YrL8jds9Ufh1Ts8g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-rdf-wg <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 12 May 2011 14:35, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>
> On May 12, 2011, at 14:17 , Dan Brickley wrote:
> <snip/>
>>
>>>> 2.  Authoring format: Mediawiki markup, or HTML5-with-<sections>.  This
>>>> includes how the bibliography is done.
>>>
>>> HTML5.
>>
>> I'd like to stick to an XML-friendly subset if we can. Most of HTML5
>> is in the Javascript APIs anyway, ... don't imagine we'll be using
>> those?
>
> The fact that it is HTML5 is because it is HTML with some additional tags that are not HTML4, essentially <section>. If we choose to use XHTML5, that would work just as well.
>
> The only thing an editor has to do is to fill some data (title and editors and dates and those kind of things) in an embedded Javascript code and, otherwise, the average document editor has nothing to do with Javascript; it is all done behind the scenes by Javascript. It is just HTML editing as far as I am concerned...
>
> Ie: I guess I do not understand your arguments...

That's because I wasn't arguing. I also wasn't very clear; apologies for that.

I was just trying to say that 'being HTML5' in popular perception is
less about the markup than about APIs; and that our final products as
static HTML documents won't be using those anyway.

As you say,

"The fact that it is HTML5 is because it is HTML with some additional
tags that are not HTML4, essentially <section>".

I'd be happy to try respec.js, ... my comments about .js above were unrelated...

cheers,

Dan
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2011 12:42:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:42 GMT