Re: Removing XHTML saving from ReSpec?

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Shane McCarron <ahby@aptest.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote:
> > On 25/02/2013 15:35 , Shane McCarron wrote:
> >>
> >> Currently there are only a few grammars that are permitted in a W3C
> >> Recommendation.  NONE of the permitted grammars are HTML5.
> >
> >
> > Actually that's not true. HTML5 is permitted and has been for a while.
> > That's why ReSpec produces HTML5!
>
> It is not permitted in Recommendations.  Just in earlier drafts.
> Unless something changed and I missed it.  Only approved grammars that
> are a Recommendation may be used in W3C Recommendations.
>
> >
> >
> >> RDFa is critical for some of the things that the community is starting
> >> to do with the specifications in the wild.  RDFa is ONLY currently
> >> defined for XHTML.  There is a document in progress that defines it in
> >> terms of HTML, but that will not be a Recommendation for some time.
> >> Even when it is, it will not really have a definition in the context
> >> of HTML4 (because we are not permitted to extend HTML4).  So until
> >> HTML5 is a Recommendation, and until it is permitted for use in W3C
> >> recommendations, we need to support XHTML+RDFa in order to use RDFa in
> >> W3C Recommendations.
> >
> >
> > We can use HTML5 and it's not a Rec. Is there any reason why we couldn't
> use
> > HTML5 + RDFa too? Is it unstable? I thought we had something reliable at
> > this stage. Are people really expected to deploy RDFa in XHTML? That
> doesn't
> > seem viable (and surprises me a good deal!).
>
> It is stable but it is not a Recommendation.


HTML+RDFa is currently in LC, so if all goes well, it should be a REC in a
few months [1].

Steph.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html-rdfa/


>  See above.  XHTML+RDFa
> is perfectly stable and works well as a backward compatible
> serialization.  I suspect that is what the W3C's goal is with
> Recommendations.
>
>
> --
> Shane P. McCarron
> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
>
>


-- 
Steph.