- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:29:17 +0100
- To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
[ resending because of the Issue tracker - please keep '(ISSUE-41)' in subject if you reply.] Dr. Olaf Hoffmann, Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:59:53 +0100: > Tab Atkins Jr.: >> 2010/1/19 Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>: >>> Well several members of the working group convinced me in the >>> previous discussions, that HTML5 (HyperText Markup Language Vesion 5) >>> is not the right place for poetry, literature or text, it cares about >>> other things (I did not ask or look into details, about what else it >>> cares) - therefore it was suggested to use another language to markup >>> text or to use RDF(a) and a specific vocabulary. > If we continue to discuss this, we should change the topic, Done. ;-) > Some responses are added in the wiki. > http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/PoeticSemantics > > Already the first response from Peter Krantz suggests to use XHTML2 or RDFa. It strikes me that this is an example of a language which we could have developed within HTML5, if Toby's Decentralized Extensibility proposal had been implemented in HTML5. http://www.w3.org/mid/1263511821.18556.5.camel@ophelia2.g5n.co.uk Then we would not need develop new elements. How would you have looked upon such a solution? All the stuff which relates to RDFa and @role could have been added to those elements instead. OTOH, we have - as you have noted - XHTML, which allows you to use validly use specific elements. And, we can serve XHTML as text/HTML. So, with HTML5 we get two kinds of text/HTML: "real" text/HTML and XHTML text/HTML. The latter gives us much more freedom than HTML5. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 19 January 2010 18:29:58 UTC