Re: HTML Ruby extensions

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:39 AM, Jukka K. Korpela <
jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi> wrote:

> 2013-10-08 12:23, Robin Berjon wrote:
>
>> On 08/10/2013 05:13 , Glenn Adams wrote:
>>
>>> Do you plan to apply these changes to 5.0?
>>>
>>
>> See:
>>
>>  On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org
>>> <mailto:robin@w3.org>> wrote:
>>>     The goal for this extension specification is to be reviewed on its
>>>     own, but to eventually become integrated into the HTML
>>>     specification. How much of it gets integrated and when largely
>>>     depends on implementations. If implementations support this inside
>>>     of the CR period, then all of it will simply be folded into HTML. If
>>>     however the newer features are not yet supported well enough, a
>>>     "viable subset" will get folded in. That viable subset will be
>>>     primarily comprised of existing elements as processed by the new
>>>     algorithm.
>>>
>>
>> So at the very least part of it will make it into 5.0 yes.
>>
>>
> From Plan 2014, http://dev.w3.org/html5/**decision-policy/html5-2014-**
> plan.html <http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html>
> I get the idea that HTML 5.0 is to finalized without adding new features,
> to have finally something delivered as a REC, and enhancements will be
> considered when defining 5.1.
>

It would probably be good for the WG to discuss this matter in the next
F2F. For me, the issue is whether this is fixing something broken and that
we wouldn't want to set into concrete in a REC. There are already changes
to 5.0 (or slated, if not already applied) to fix a number of problems
around TextTrackCue, and I believe Sylvia has said that other technical
fixes have been applied to 5.0 as well.


>
> But maybe I'm reading too much between the lines.
>
> To me, Ruby looks like a rather specialized topic, which is essential in
> some contexts, irrelevant in most, and quite difficult to understand. So it
> very much sounds like something that could be defined in HTML 5.0 just in a
> relatively simple form, as it currently is, and a separate extension should
> be defined.
>
> --
> Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~**jkorpela/ <http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/>
>
>
>