Re: Concerns about new section "predefined vocabularies"

Julian Reschke wrote:
> ...
> Yes,
> 
> but the hCard microformat isn't defined in the HTML spec.
> 
> So, my issues are:
> 
> Procedural - the WG is working on trying to find consensus on all 
> sections of the spec; sections without consensus are to be removed (at 
> least that's my understanding of the process). Also, the editor himself 
> announced a "feature freeze" quite some time ago. So, why are we seeing 
> these new sections without *any* prior discussion?
> 
> Spec Size - the spec already is big, and there is no evidence that this 
> needs to be specified *inside* the HTML5 spec.
> 
> Extensibility - the current chapter copies terminology from RFC2426, but 
> misses it's extensibility hooks, and thus fails to mention things that 
> have been defined later, such as the IMPP type name.
> 
> Parsing - for some types, parsing rules are being rephrased from 
> RFC2426. There is a risk that they diverge.
> 
> Versioning - the IETF is revising vCard, see 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev-07>. Is HTML5 
> going to freeze the vocabulary at a version that the IETF is currently 
> obsoleting?
> 
> So, I do agree that it's a good exercise to define how to expose vCard 
> data in RDFa and/or "microdata". But please do so in a separate 
> document, and without ignoring current IETF work.
> 
> BR, Julian
> ...

I note there was no feedback on this. Does silence mean agreement here?

In the meantime, the "spec" also contains instructions how to convert 
HTML to Atom, and a section about BibTeX (!).

I have no problem with people trying to specify this *somewhere*, but I 
do have a big issue with this being done in HTML5.

BR, Julian

Received on Friday, 22 May 2009 08:24:23 UTC