- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:10:05 +0100
- To: shane@aptest.com
- CC: Shane McCarron <ahby@aptest.com>, "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>
On 25/02/2013 15:44 , Shane McCarron wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote: >> Actually that's not true. HTML5 is permitted and has been for a while. >> That's why ReSpec produces HTML5! > > It is not permitted in Recommendations. Just in earlier drafts. > Unless something changed and I missed it. Only approved grammars that > are a Recommendation may be used in W3C Recommendations. As per https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2012JanMar/0077.html (member-only): "We plan to extend to Recommendations once we have gained some experience." We have experience and HTML5 is a CR. The features that ReSpec is using (e.g. <section>) aren't going to disappear. So we're discussing revisiting that restriction (I'll get back to you as soon as I know). >> We can use HTML5 and it's not a Rec. Is there any reason why we couldn't use >> HTML5 + RDFa too? Is it unstable? I thought we had something reliable at >> this stage. Are people really expected to deploy RDFa in XHTML? That doesn't >> seem viable (and surprises me a good deal!). > > It is stable but it is not a Recommendation. If it's stable I see no reason not to use it! -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Monday, 25 February 2013 15:10:15 UTC