W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa@w3.org > February 2009

Re: RDFa and Web Directions North 2009

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:13:51 -0500
Message-ID: <49959C3F.7050405@intertwingly.net>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
CC: Michael Bolger <michael@michaelbolger.net>, public-rdfa@w3.org, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

Dan Brickley wrote:
> +cc: Sam Ruby, TimBL, DanC

+cc: Hixie

> On 13/2/09 10:27, Michael Bolger wrote:
> 
>> Friends of XHTML, are seeing a train wreck, the same "old" W3C
>> "hero-worshiped" "leadership" does nothing of any substance to join the
>> battle. HTML 5 has won by default.

I believe that I can amply demonstrate myself as being both a friend of 
XHTML *and* as a friend of HTML 5.

>> Who, Where? is the top representative from the W3C in the html5/xhtml5
>> process.

I believe that looking at the "top" is looking in the wrong direction. 
Yes, there are good people at the "top", but from what I see, there are 
not enough people ready, willing, and able to do the hard work of 
drafting specs that can gain consensus.

>> Marketing RDFa? Get someone to lead the effort in the html5/xhtml5
>> battle before it is over.

Again, I'm not certain that marketing is the right answer.  At the 
present time, the editor of the HTML 5 specification is profoundly 
unconvinced that RDFa either has a valid use case or is the best way to 
address the use cases that have been provided.  I see several ways 
forward, none of which involves battles, direction from on high, or 
marketing.

1) Convince Ian that RDFa has merit.

2) Produce a specification, possibly derived in a substantial way from 
the current HTML 5 specification, with the necessary additions for RDFa. 
  If this is done, we can see which draft enjoys a greater amount of 
consensus.

3) Accept that HTML 5 is just "a" specification, and that there may be 
other specifications which target your use case.  I'm just mentioning 
this one for completeness, as co-chair of the HTML working group, this 
approach would sadden me.

> This is not a battle.  Battles kill people. It is a dispute amongst 
> technologists who have varying assumptions, backgrounds, collaboration 
> networks and agendas, and who are slowly learning to see each other's 
> perspective.
> 
> Please (and I am very serious here) stop using such bloody metaphors to 
> describe what should be a civil and mutually respectful collaborative 
> process. You will not improve anything if you foster this kind of 
> perspective on our shared problems. Battle talk results in a battle 
> mindset. I do not want to hear any RDFa advocates talking in such terms.
> 
> Really, enough with the battle stuff. Go find someone who works on HTML5 
> and be nice to them, find common ground, try out their tools.

As always, I find myself agreeing with Dan.

> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Dan

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 13 February 2009 16:14:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 13 February 2009 16:14:25 GMT