Ben Adida wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
Before I agree, let me give my perspective. People are going to use
RDFa in HTML, and as such I feel that such usage should be documented,
test suites set up, and libraries made to interoperate, yadda, yadda,
yadda. I don't happen to agree that that work as largely done.
I agree that this should be done. It's not done yet, but it's well on
its way (and the work on RDFa in XHTML1.1 is of course a huge help in this.)
Talking specifically about a "RDFa in HTML" draft, I don't see how
anybody can take a position that microdata is in scope for the HTML WG
and RDFa in HTML is not.
Well, Henri did just that in his blog post, and Ian clearly thinks that.
Therein lies the problem. We want to work on RDFa and address real use
cases without being dependent on Ian. Sure, joint work can happen to
enable RDFa in HTML5, but since HTML5 is willing to ignore what Google,
Yahoo, CC, the UK government, and many others are doing, then *some*
group needs to take on that work. That's the point of the RDFa IG.
-Ben
I hope you all don't mind me butting into this discussion.
I doubt that the microdata section will live to see final publication,
but I don't see whether it will or won't will impact on whether RDFa is
incorporated into HTML 5.
Just giving my two cents worth, but I can't help thinking a separate
group focused on providing a RDFa in HTML 5 document would ultimately be
the better course anyway. The problem is that the conformance language
of HTML 5 is such that even if you work through some of the technical
issues, using RDFa within HTML 5 (either served as XML or not) will not
be "conformant".
So perhaps what's really needed is a three prong approach: work on a
separate spec/doc about RDFa in HTML 5, work to get the microdata
section removed from HTML 5 (should happen regardless of RDFa), and work
to eliminate the "not defined here therefore it's non-conformant"
language from the HTML 5 specification.
Shelley
