review of GRDDL by (X)HTML working group(s)?

Hmm... in a Hypertext Coordination Group, I just realized
review of GRDDL spec/tests by HTML Working Group(s) might
be in order.

For example, GRDDL uses the head/@profile attribute, which
is dropped in the current HTML 5 draft
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/

Optimally, the HTML WG (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/) would say
"yes, we think those GRDDL tests are good text/html documents,
and we're convinced to add head/@profile back in". The
odds of that are fairly low; I'm not sure I have bandwidth
to do the relevant advocacy/argument.

Pessimally, the HTML WG would say "you're using text/html
for XHTML documents, which we think is wrong; stop it."

Another risk is that we'd get 57 new messages to
our comments list; messages that include conspiracy
theories about market leaders and such as often as
"please change X to Y" spec suggestions.

Asking the XHTML 2 WG (http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/ ) is also
perhaps worthwhile.

As team contact, I'm somewhat obliged to recommend that we
solicit review from these groups. But, Harry, you should
think over the risks carefully before we do it. Others
are welcome to advise.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Friday, 22 June 2007 14:39:38 UTC