RE: Questions on <datatemplate> (ref. call for exclusions)

Ian Hickson wrote:

> I think therefore that the better idea is to look at the data templating
> and repetition model features, as well as the many other client-side
> templating ideas people have come up with for HTML, and find what
> features, if any, could provide an underlying infrastructure that could
> enable all of these features to be implemented easily by authors. That 
> way we would help a much bigger fraction of the potential template
authors.

Makes sense.  But just so we're all clear, my questions for now are for
the purpose of understanding if HP has to request to "exclude specifically 
identified and disclosed Essential Claims from the overall W3C RF licensing 
requirements" [1] with respect to HTML 5, before the June 20 deadline.

I recently became HP's HTML WG representative, and this basically became
my first task. Once we clear this hurdle, I should have time to start
attending the WG phone meetings. After June 20, I should have time to 
start attending the phone meetings, etc.

In the meantime, I'm reading the spec documents, searching the email 
archives and asking questions here to get up to speed. Thanks for 
everyone's patience while I come up the learning curve.

[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exclusion

Matt
--
Matt Bonner
Hewlett-Packard Company
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Hickson [mailto:ian@hixie.ch] 
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 11:46 PM
> To: Bonner, Matt; Philip Taylor
> Cc: public-html@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Questions on <datatemplate> (ref. call for exclusions)
> 
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008, Bonner, Matt (IPG) wrote:
> >
> > First topic is <datatemplate>. I see that this is marked as "Being
> > considered for removal" in the WHATWG draft, so I welcome 
> any guidance
> > on its likely fate.
> 
> It (and the repetition section of WF2, also part of HTML5) 
> are two ways of
> doing templating, but really there are dozens and dozens of 
> ways of doing
> it. In my research on this I've come across a number of different
> mechanisms that can't be said to be any technically worse 
> than what's in
> the spec, each with their own strengths and their own weaknesses.
> Similarly, people have given me many use cases that each need 
> their own
> unique features.
> 
> Because of this, making any one mechanism an officially 
> blessed one seems
> like a bad idea. It would only cater for a small fraction of 
> the cases we
> want to cater for. There's no point adding features that 
> aren't useful to
> the majority of people who need them.
> 
> I think therefore that the better idea is to look at the data 
> templating
> and repetition model features, as well as the many other client-side
> templating ideas people have come up with for HTML, and find what
> features, if any, could provide an underlying infrastructure 
> that could
> enable all of these features to be implemented easily by 
> authors. That way
> we would help a much bigger fraction of the potential 
> template authors.
> 
> 
> As far the more concrete technical questions go, Philip's comments and
> explanations are right on the money.
> 
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                
> )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   
> _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   
> `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>