W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Publication of specifications as HTML5

From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 21:21:13 -0400
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, spec-prod@w3.org, ayg@aryeh.name, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1314148873.554.79.camel@desktop.barefootcomputing.com>
On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 15:07 +0200, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Aug 22, 2011, at 05:15 , Liam R E Quin wrote:
> > Seems to me a requirement should be that the format issuitable for
> > archiving.
> I strongly agree. I also happen to think that this constitutes a
> strong endorsement in favour of using HTML5 

There are two parts. One is technological and I think can easily be
addressed. For example, HTML documents could contain a link element with
rel="conformsto" to point to a specific draft, not for validation
purposes of course, but for archival purposes.

The second is philosophical. I'm actually 100% OK with using HTML 5 for
the HTML 5 specification itself. Once HTML 5 is a Rec I'm OK with using
it for other things too. I'm also OK with using HTML 5 for drafts that
are moving forward, with the understanding that they have a dependency
on the HTML 5 Rec.  I wouldn't want an *unrelated* spec to be published
as a Recommendation right now, today, in HTML 5, just as I didn't want
RDFa to be used in Recs before RDFa was itself a Rec. This is because,
if we ask other people to wait for Recommendation before they use a
standard (which is what "Recommendation" means - we now recommend that
you use this) then we should wait ourselves.



Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2011 01:22:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:19 UTC