Re: HTML+RDFa Heartbeat Draft publishing request

Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> "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."
>>
>> So if somebody claims that RDFa or Microdata are covered by this part of
>> the charter then it's *natural* to ask how they can fulfill the
>> requirement.
> 
> They fulfil that requirement by allowing the inclusion of *some other* 
> independent vocabularies.  Just because they do not permit the inclusion 
> of the 3 examples given in the charter, does not mean they don't qualify.

Oh really? OK, let's disagree on that.

> And because Microdata is for describing semantics of documents, it is 
> also covered by:
> 
> "A language evolved from HTML4 for describing the semantics of documents 
> and applications on the World Wide Web. This will be a complete 
> specification, not a delta specification."

That's an interesting thought, but of course would apply to RDFa as well.

> ...
>>> Each of those could be included using either RDFa or Microdata, as
>>> they have been designed for doing so.
>>
>> Of course these are independently developed, and also some kind of
>> vocabulary. Nobody is disputing that.
> 
> So, then do you agree that finding a way to include those would be 
> covered by the statement "The HTML WG is encouraged to provide a 
> mechanism to permit independently developed vocabularies", despite them 
> not being listed explicitly as examples?  If not, why not?

No. The charter mentioned three examples of vocabularies, so any 
solution that claims to fulfill this charter requirement should better 
demonstrate that it can address those examples (or at least some of them).

Best regards, Julian

Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 10:25:23 UTC