W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2010

RE: HTML+RDFa Heartbeat Draft publishing request

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:38:04 -0800
To: "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
CC: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D4B9DCF@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
I think where this discussion is leading me is:

HTML has several different extension mechanisms.
Some traditional extensibility mechanisms (DOCTYPE version
extensions & DTDs, head/@profile with meta) have been
removed.

Some new ones have been proposed and added
(microdata) or added under protest (RDFa).

Some other ones are being dealt with a mysterious
"other specification" mechanism which isn't really
a mechanism since it isn't really defined.
(SVG and MathML).

Some other namespace-like things are being discussed
but haven't been settled.

One of the proposals shows how to add RDFa but
nothing else, there's a proposal for how to add Ruby
which we haven't talked about much. I don't remember
any discussions on how to add ITS. 

No one has talked much about how to unify these
extensibility mechanisms or enable a transition of
one to the other.

I think if we were going to take the charter seriously,
we'd do more work on convergence.

Is that a fair summary? Would you change it somehow?

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net


-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 3:09 AM
To: Lachlan Hunt
Cc: Michael Hausenblas; Larry Masinter; www-archive; Ian Hickson
Subject: Re: HTML+RDFa Heartbeat Draft publishing request

Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> ...
> The problem here is that you're somehow categorising the list of 
> examples given in the charter, and using that to somehow limit the class 
> of independent vocabularies that are being referred to by the charter. I 
> do not believe that is a reasonable interpretation.  The actual 
> requirement in the charter just says "independently developed 
> vocabularies", without placing any restrictions on what type of 
> independent vocabularies are being referred to.
> ...

I don't follow. Are you saying that the fact that specific examples are 
listed doesn't mean anything?

Best regards, Julian


Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 16:38:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:28 GMT