Re: HTML Modularisation

I would also note that some Government digital policies are officially
gated on versioned standards releases (however misguided you may think this
is)
Italy
http://www.agid.gov.it/node/1556

When developing a site, you can use the specifications in the pipeline such
> as HTML5?
>
>  Yes, from October 28, 2014 HTML5 has achieved the status of a W3C
> Recommendation, and therefore this specification is also used by the
> recipients of the Law 4/2004.
>

translation:
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.agid.gov.it%2Fnode%2F1556&edit-text=&act=url


--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>

On 1 November 2014 20:58, 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
>
>