- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:11:04 +0200
- To: HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote: > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/htmldata/raw-file/default/html-data-guide/index.html > > Please take the time to read this as it is the main product of this Task Force, and raise any comments here. * Various places say "browser plug-ins". "Plug-ins" typically mean NPAPI or ActiveX plug-ins. AFAICT, work in this space has happened in browser *extensions* rather than plug-ins. * Was RDFa really originally designed for XHTML 1.1 instead of XHTML2? I thought it was designed for XHTML2 and was backported to XHTML 1.1. http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/02/xhtml-rdf.html omits namespace declarations in the host language but mentions XHTML2 in passing as a rationale for a design decision. * "All three syntaxes follow the same general data model." I think that's an overstatement. The formats do differ in terms of how entities can be composed into larger structures (graphs vs. trees). * "if your publishing guidelines require validity against an older version of HTML" "If your publishing guidelines require validity against XHTML" Those are terrible reasons to do something. While it might be realistic to acknowledge that some organizations self-impose nonsensical guidelines, I think this guide should avoid implying that backward-looking self-imposed guidelines are a reasonable input into format choice. (Instead, the format choice should be treated as an input into the organization's guidelines.) * "Some older browsers may move" advice formulated like this tends to live on as a cargo cult long after the browsers in question have faded out of use. Please be specific about which browser versions do this so that the piece of advice comes with data that readers can use to determine if the issue is still relevant. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 19 December 2011 11:11:42 UTC