- From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 21:21:13 -0400
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Cc: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, spec-prod@w3.org, ayg@aryeh.name, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 15:07 +0200, Robin Berjon wrote: > On Aug 22, 2011, at 05:15 , Liam R E Quin wrote: [...] > > Seems to me a requirement should be that the format issuitable for > > archiving. > > I strongly agree. I also happen to think that this constitutes a > strong endorsement in favour of using HTML5 There are two parts. One is technological and I think can easily be addressed. For example, HTML documents could contain a link element with rel="conformsto" to point to a specific draft, not for validation purposes of course, but for archival purposes. The second is philosophical. I'm actually 100% OK with using HTML 5 for the HTML 5 specification itself. Once HTML 5 is a Rec I'm OK with using it for other things too. I'm also OK with using HTML 5 for drafts that are moving forward, with the understanding that they have a dependency on the HTML 5 Rec. I wouldn't want an *unrelated* spec to be published as a Recommendation right now, today, in HTML 5, just as I didn't want RDFa to be used in Recs before RDFa was itself a Rec. This is because, if we ask other people to wait for Recommendation before they use a standard (which is what "Recommendation" means - we now recommend that you use this) then we should wait ourselves. Best, Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2011 01:22:00 UTC