Re: Publication of specifications as HTML5

On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 21:21 -0400, Liam R E Quin wrote:
> 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.

Except that we don't... We actually encourage people to experiment with
HTML5. While there are many features in the HTML5 specification that are
not yet implemented, there are also many features that have been
implemented across all major browsers and devices. A specification is
less likely to be interested in using some of the advanced features of
HTML5, like video multi-track or input type date. However, the use of
ARIA, which is in CR, in a specification is currently prohibited and
enabling HTML5 would remove that restriction,

Philippe

> Best,
> 
> Liam
>

Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2011 13:21:22 UTC