Re: [whatwg] A New Way Forward for HTML5 (revised)

Peter Kasting wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:06 PM, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu
> <mailto:jfoliot@stanford.edu>> wrote:
> 
>     That said, the barrier to equal entry remains high:
>     http://burningbird.net/node/28

I don't necessarily agree with most of Shelley's take on the situation.
I do agree with the point that we need to make contributing to HTML5
easier for those without the technical skills required for source
control. So, this response has nothing to do with the post that John
linked to or Shelley's take on the situation (just making those points
clear).

> I'm beginning to suspect that this whole line of conversation is
> specific to RDFa, which is a discussion I never took part in.

No, it is not specific to RDFa. If it were specific to RDFa, I would
have said that it was specific to RDFa and wouldn't have gone to the
trouble of writing the "Restructuring HTML5" document.

The RDFa discussion triggered my current thinking on how this spec is
being put together, the XHTML2 work being halted added to the concern,
others (both inside and outside WHAT WG) helped to focus the issues.
They are all aspects of the document, but are not end-goals.

Here's why I'm not that concerned about RDFa at this point in time:

Even if it isn't in the HTML5 specification: RDFa can be embedded,
as-is, in XHTML5.

There exists an HTML5+RDFa spec, and it will probably be published as a
WD. If this conversation was specific to RDFa, why would we go to the
trouble of creating tools to edit the specification when the end-product
(HTML5+RDFa) already exists?

As for the discussion on HTML5+RDFa - it's still going on, if you'd like
to provide constructive criticism or feedback of any kind.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Bitmunk 3.1 Released - Browser-based P2P Commerce
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/06/29/browser-based-p2p-commerce/

Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2009 04:00:22 UTC