Re: HTML Modularisation

Just a clarification. The goal of XHTML Modularization was to create
pluggable modules so that anyone could create ala carte markup languages,
integrating pieces of XHTML along with other elements potentially in other
namespaces.  And I agree that is not at all what has been proposed here.

Thanks for all the hard work.  I look forward to assisting and contributing!
On Nov 1, 2014 4:00 PM, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> On Thursday, Robin and I presented to the AC on HTML Modularity.  The
> slides are available here:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2014/10/modularity-slides/
>
> Robin presented the slides, then I added commentary based on feedback that
> these topics had received during the course of TPAC.  The very first
> question was that I should post that feedback "someplace", and I am now
> doing so.
>
> On http://www.w3.org/2014/10/modularity-slides/?full#3
>
> I noted that I had heard a lone voice questioning the Extensible Web
> Manifesto, but no arguments against greater inclusiveness or greater
> participation.
>
> http://www.w3.org/2014/10/modularity-slides/?full#4
>
> There are questions as to how git + pull requests will work, and at this
> point it is best described as a work in progress.  We will learn as we go.
>
> This prompted questions about tracking IP.  The most that we could commit
> to at this time is preparing reports.  We also noted that the ability to
> produce reports would be a step forward over the current situation where
> there is little or no traceability between contributions made via the
> mailing list and changes to the specification.
>
> http://www.w3.org/2014/10/modularity-slides/?full#5
>
> There clearly are voices for "bleeding edge only".  I've heard nobody
> advocate "stable releases only".  I'd describe a position of "regular
> releases and making the bleeding edge publicly available" as enjoying a
> comfortable majority.
>
> http://www.w3.org/2014/10/modularity-slides/?full#7
>
> Everybody agrees that it is hard, it is work, and that it is useful and
> powerful.
>
> A comment on the contrast to XHTML modularization: a goal of XHTML
> modularization was to enable an "a la carte" model where mobile vendors
> could pick and chose what features they would support.  That would not be
> the case here: the goal would remain "one web".  If (hypothetically) <form>
> support were to be split out into a separate specification, it would be
> normative referenced and not optional.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>