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

Re: HTML+RDFa Heartbeat Draft publishing request

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:40:47 -0800
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: <AB98C0C0-64C7-498F-823A-CA47B8FB006D@apple.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>

On Jan 14, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Larry Masinter wrote:

> 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?

ISSUE-41 covers a particular family of proposals for additional  
extensibility. Some of those proposals may build on the already  
existing extensibility mechanisms. Others may propose brand new  
additional mechanisms. Some might even propose removing some of the  
existing mechanisms in the course of adding new ones, though I do not  
believe anyone has actually advocated that view. My hope is that when  
ISSUE-41 is settled, we will have a good picture of the overall range  
of extensibility mechanisms we plan to offer, and how that lines up  
with the charter's encouragement.

Regards,
Maciej

>
> Larry
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net
>
>
> -----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.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 17:41:20 UTC

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