Re: [whatwg] Question about the PICS label in HTML5
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Marco wrote: I've been looking through the HTML5 working draft and I've been trying to find a reference for the use of the current PICS labels. HTML5 currently doesn't define PICS support, but it allows authors to define extensions for meta name and link rel by registering them in the wiki. I noticed that the new specs only give three accepted keywords for the http-equiv attribute, which doesn't include the current pics-label: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#http-equiv0 Right, http-equiv is now defined really to be just a pragma, as opposed to metadata of some kind, so pics-label wouldn't really fit. Having said that, I was searching within the new specs for a way of accurately describing one's content. I'm somewhat aware of the W3C POWDER WG and the only post that I could find that was recent and relative to this is here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Mar/0114.html The closest type of markup that comes close to describing content that is accepted with the HTML5 validator is the current ICRA label: link rel=meta href=http://yoursite.com/labels.xml; type=application/rdf+xml title=ICRA labels / My question is: what is the direction for describing the type of content you would have within the context of the HTML5 working draft? Either a meta name or a link rel mechanism, probably, or a Microformat using class values. On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Phil Archer wrote: As of today, PICS remains a W3C Recommendation so if HTML 5 is not going to support it in any way, that strikes me as questionable. PICS continues to be supported in Internet Explorer and, much to my surprise, this feature was updated to work with the current ICRA vocabulary in IE7. This was based on research that MSFT did into its usage which found that 'just enough' people used it to warrant its retention. I don't know whether it will survive into IE 8. We do still issue PICS labels (alongside an RDF-based label, the syntax for which is not standardised). Once HTML5 is completed, I expect PICS will long have been replaced by POWDER or other mechanisms, so I don't propose to make HTML5 specifically support PICS at this time. What do we need for HTML 5? Just the link/rel element. A POWDER link will be something like link rel=powder href=powder.xml type=application/xml / Please register such values at: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/RelExtensions On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Dan Brickley wrote: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/RelExtensions Erm, 'For the Status section to be changed to Accepted, the proposed keyword must have been through the Microformats process, and been approved by the Microformats community. ' Is that really so? I've adjusted that text to mention W3C standards as being fine too. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] Question about the PICS label in HTML5
Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:06:46 +0200, Dan Brickley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/RelExtensions Erm, 'For the Status section to be changed to Accepted, the proposed keyword must have been through the Microformats process, and been approved by the Microformats community. ' Is that really so? That's the current proposal. I personally think a W3C Recommendation backing it should be enough as well. If these drafts are destined for W3C specs, then yes, please make that change to your process. Microformats.org should be one of several in-routes here. cheers, Dan -- http://danbri.org/
Re: [whatwg] Question about the PICS label in HTML5
Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:37:30 +0200, Phil Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do we need for HTML 5? Just the link/rel element. A POWDER link will be something like link rel=powder href=powder.xml type=application/xml / If the POWDER WG defines the powder relationship and adds powder to the following Wiki page as proposal that should be enough (with a pointer to the definition): http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/RelExtensions Erm, 'For the Status section to be changed to Accepted, the proposed keyword must have been through the Microformats process, and been approved by the Microformats community. ' Is that really so? Dan -- http://danbri.org/
Re: [whatwg] Question about the PICS label in HTML5
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:06:46 +0200, Dan Brickley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/RelExtensions Erm, 'For the Status section to be changed to Accepted, the proposed keyword must have been through the Microformats process, and been approved by the Microformats community. ' Is that really so? That's the current proposal. I personally think a W3C Recommendation backing it should be enough as well. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/ http://www.opera.com/
Re: [whatwg] Question about the PICS label in HTML5
On 16/04/2008, Marco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been looking through the HTML5 working draft and I've been trying to find a reference for the use of the current PICS labels. I may have missed it, but does anyone, anywhere, actually use PICS? I don't think I've even heard the name uttered in a few years - I assumed it had died of neglect and lack of interest. - d.
Re: [whatwg] Question about the PICS label in HTML5
On 16/04/2008, David Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I may have missed it, but does anyone, anywhere, actually use PICS? I don't think I've even heard the name uttered in a few years - I assumed it had died of neglect and lack of interest. About 1% of the pages listed on dmoz.org attempt to use it - see http://philip.html5.org/data/pics-label.html (I have no idea how many of those uses are syntactically valid (maybe someone could test that if they're quite bored), or are appropriate for the page's content.) -- Philip Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[whatwg] Question about the PICS label in HTML5
Hello. I've been looking through the HTML5 working draft and I've been trying to find a reference for the use of the current PICS labels. I noticed that the new specs only give three accepted keywords for the http-equiv attribute, which doesn't include the current pics-label: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#http-equiv0 Being a custom attribute, it makes sense that you wouldn't want to promote this type of thing. Having said that, I was searching within the new specs for a way of accurately describing one's content. I'm somewhat aware of the W3C POWDER WG and the only post that I could find that was recent and relative to this is here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Mar/0114.html The closest type of markup that comes close to describing content that is accepted with the HTML5 validator is the current ICRA label: link rel=meta href=http://yoursite.com/labels.xml; type=application/rdf+xml title=ICRA labels / My question is: what is the direction for describing the type of content you would have within the context of the HTML5 working draft? Looking over the latest working draft, the closest I could see to where this might possibly be applicable is section 3.3.4 - Transparent content models. Would it be that you'd have markup right in the body that is considered transparent but describes the content on the page? Or, would you take something like the approach with the ICRA example above? If anyone has insight into this, I'd certainly appreciate it. Regards, Marco Battilana
