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: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:34:43 -0800
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D4B9DF8@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
Well, if ISSUE-41 is how the HTML-WG is addressing the
extensibility mechanism in the charter, then what again
is the rationale for adding microdata?


-----Original Message-----
From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:mjs@apple.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 8:47 AM
To: Larry Masinter
Cc: julian.reschke@gmx.de; Lachlan Hunt; Michael Hausenblas; www-archive; Ian Hickson
Subject: Re: HTML+RDFa Heartbeat Draft publishing request

Hi Larry,

On Jan 14, 2010, at 8:38 AM, Larry Masinter wrote:

> I think where this discussion is leading me is:
> HTML has several different extension mechanisms.
> Some traditional extensibility mechanisms (DOCTYPE version
> extensions & DTDs, head/@profile with meta) have been
> removed.
> Some new ones have been proposed and added
> (microdata) or added under protest (RDFa).
> Some other ones are being dealt with a mysterious
> "other specification" mechanism which isn't really
> a mechanism since it isn't really defined.
> (SVG and MathML).
> Some other namespace-like things are being discussed
> but haven't been settled.
> One of the proposals shows how to add RDFa but
> nothing else, there's a proposal for how to add Ruby
> which we haven't talked about much. I don't remember
> any discussions on how to add ITS.
> No one has talked much about how to unify these
> extensibility mechanisms or enable a transition of
> one to the other.
> I think if we were going to take the charter seriously,
> we'd do more work on convergence.
> Is that a fair summary? Would you change it somehow?

I think that in broad terms you are correct that we should consider  
extension mechanisms more generally, and see if any broadly powerful  
ones need to be added. I believe that is covered under ISSUE-41  
decentralized-extensibility, where we have had much discussion and  
soon will need to convert our thinking into concrete proposals.

I'm not sure I agree entirely with all of your specific comments, but  
I'm thinking I will save that commentary for the ISSUE-41 discussion.

Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 17:35:28 UTC

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