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

While I understand Ivan's concerns, I think there is a large point and 
then two ramifications:

  We *should not*  formally ask for reviews, but we should probably at 
least  bring GRDDL to their attention. This should be done by e-mailing 
the chairs and telling them to forward the announcement that we are going to 
PR in July, and that while we are not formally requesting comments, now is 
the time to put in any last minute comments.

  1) A review by (X)HTML should be uncontroversial. Therefore, I will 
e-mail their chair today to "bring it to his attention".

  2) A review by HTML WG could be controversial. The main point of bringing 
GRDDL to their attention would be ask them to politely *not* remove 
profile, since other standards (i.e. GRDDL) use it. Therefore, I suggest 
that we carefully phrase an e-mail to the chair of the HTML WG saying to 
forward a message from the GRDDL Working Group that is about to go to PR 
and that uses "profile" attribute. Therefore, in any future arguments the 
HTML WG has, there will be some ammunition for those who want to keep the 
"profile" attribute in HTML.


 			thanks,
 				harry





WG should be requested and should be non-controversial. I can e-mail

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, Ivan Herman wrote:

> Hm. I am obviously a bit worried about this, for reasons you cite below.
> This may easily degenerate into a religious debate on microformats vs
> RDF, XML vs. non-XML, and world peace in general...:-(
>
> Thinking about it... isn't it correct that all the issues that might be
> commented and discussed are typical last call issues? With GRDDL heading
> for PR at the moment, it strikes me as being too late.
> Interested/worried parties had their possibilities to comment...
>
> Besides: GRDDL is diligently following the designs and technical
> decision of existing recommendations. Possibly being under the pressure
> for radically changing the GRDDL design on request from a group that did
> not even exist when the GRDDL WG started is, well, possibly inappropriate...
>
> Ie, my current feeling is that we can move on without this.
>
> DanC, thanks for having raised the issue...
>
> Ivan
>
>
> Dan Connolly wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
>

-- 
 				--harry

 	Harry Halpin
 	Informatics, University of Edinburgh
         http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin

Received on Saturday, 23 June 2007 14:51:06 UTC