W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2010

RE: HTML+RDFa Heartbeat Draft publishing request

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:51:17 -0800
To: "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
CC: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D4B9C65@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
Odd, I didn't get the email from Lachlan to which
Julian replied.


I do have an agenda: I think the group should focus on
resolving the critical issues around evolving HTML4 into
HTML5 without getting sandbagged by debates about issues
that are clearly outside of the established charter.

I'd like the HTML working group to finish its work
and conclude. I also think the current path, which
seems to be focused on sabotaging W3C HTML working
group so that WhatWG actually owns the process and
the language without W3C review is destructive. I think
the current path, where HTML can only be extended
by WHATWG extending it, actually works against
the goal of bringing the web to its "full potential".

I think the agenda of many of the participants seem
to be directed at irrationally, foolishly, and
childishly destroying decades of good work in W3C,
and that the nonsense has gone too far.

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net


=====================================================================
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> ...
> 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.
> ...

Larry wasn't looking for loopholes, and I don't think he's supporting 
any specific agenda. He just stated that the charter doesn't say what 
some people claim it says (btw that included myself at some point of time).

> 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.

Encouraged, not required: yes.

But it's about the *mechanism*, not about adding specific ones directly.

>   "... 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.

I don't think anybody claimed that.

>   "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.

Yes. Did anybody claim something else?

>   "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.

Yes.

> 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.

No, and nobody claims that.

Let's get back to what the charter says:

"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."

So this is about an extension *mechanism*, not a specific extension.

The XML serialization already has such an extension mechanism, through 
XML namespaces. The HTML serialization does not.

Neither RDFa, nor Microdata are extension mechanisms that allow adding 
"independently developed vocabularies" to HTML. They operate on a 
different level. Of course one can argue that this is a good thing and 
sufficient, but I don't think this is what the charter says.

> 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.

I'd be happy if we had plans/ideas for multiple of these mechanisms for 
text/html. So far we have none (unless you count the general statement 
about extensions being possible as a concrete mechanism).

BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 13 January 2010 19:52:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:45 UTC