Re: HTML+RDFa Heartbeat Draft publishing request

-public-html
+www-archive

Julian Reschke wrote:
> I agree with Larry -- the charter *clearly* doesn't ask for RDFa or
> (similar extensions) to be added, but for an extension mechanism that
> allows to add those.

> "The HTML WG is encouraged to provide a mechanism to permit
> independently developed vocabularies such as Internationalization Tag
> Set (ITS), Ruby, and RDFa to be mixed into HTML documents. Whether this
> occurs through the extensibility mechanism of XML, whether it is also
> allowed in the classic HTML serialization, and whether it uses the DTD
> and Schema modularization techniques, is for the HTML WG to determine."
>
> And no, this isn't *twisting* the charter (->
> <http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20100113#l-552>), it's *reading*
> it.

I don't think engaging in charter lawyering is a particularly 
productive, so I have taken this discussion off public-html, and I wish 
people would quit trying to find loopholes in the ambiguous language of 
the charter to support their own agenda.  However, in defence of the 
comment I made on IRC, let me explain.

It is twisting it because, despite claims to the contrary, the statement 
is saying the following:

   "The HTML WG is encouraged to provide a mechanism to permit
    independently developed vocabularies ..."

This means we are encouraged (not required) to support some 
independently developed vocabularies in some way.

   "... such as Internationalization Tag Set (ITS), Ruby, and RDFa to be
    mixed into HTML documents"

Some examples of such independent vocabularies include RDFa, ITS and 
Ruby.  Note in particular that these are examples, and not an exclusive 
list of the only ones we may choose to support.

   "Whether this occurs through the extensibility mechanism of XML,
    whether it is also allowed in the classic HTML serialization [...]
    is for the HTML WG to determine."

The choice of whether to support it in either or both XML and HTML 
serialisations is left up to the HTML WG.

   "Whether this occurs through [various options] is for the HTML WG
    to determine."

The mechanisms used to support them, if so desired, is also left up to 
the HTML WG.  Some possible mechanisms that may be considered are:
   - Extensibility mechanism of XML (i.e. namespaces).
   - Native support in the HTML serialisation.
     (This is how we added support for Ruby)
   - DTD and Schema modularization techniques.

Despite many claims to the contrary in the past, it doesn't say that we 
must support any particular independent vocabulary; nor that we can't 
support other vocabularies that weren't listed as examples; nor that we 
can't develop a new mechanism like Microdata to support other 
independent vocabularies.

And trying to twist the language of the charter, as Larry did, to 
suggest that we are only permitted to develop one mechanism that works 
for all of the independent vocabularies is counter productive as it only 
serves to limit the choices available to the group, which is clearly the 
opposite meaning intended by the parts granting the group such freedom 
of choice.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/

Received on Wednesday, 13 January 2010 13:31:16 UTC