How was this done for the current HTML5 draft? A poll?
[ ] I support the HTML5+RDFa work and would like to see RDFa
incorporated into the HTML5 specification.
[ ] I do not support the HTML5+RDFa work and would like it removed
from
the HTML5 specification.
I guess those are great questions, but I think I don't have any idea
of the scope or feasibility of what you are talking about. Do you have
a plan for incorporating RDFa into the existing ED document? I mean,
what are the steps you are going to take? Is this a new part or
replacing an existing part?
I have been following the coversation somewhat, but I haven't seen any
sort of statement of work, a plan, or schedule, or even a couple of
sentences that precisly says these parts over here be good and these
parts already in there be bad, with good links. As I said in another
reply, at this point first just show me the new or replacement content
with some details about how you would incorporate the update if this
WG approved it.
Thanks Again and Best Regards,
Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Manu Sporny" <mspo...@digitalbazaar.com>
To: "HTML WG" <public-h...@w3.org>
Cc: "RDFa mailing list" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: Publishing a new draft (HTML5+RDFa)
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Larry Masinter wrote:
My objection would be satisfied if we also simultaneously
published
Mike Smith's document and/or Manu's fork as First Public Working
Drafts along with a clear public explanation of the process we
are now engaging.
Clarifying...
I don't see the HTML5+RDFa draft as a "fork" of the HTML5
specification.
We should be very careful with the language we're using with the
general
public. To Joe Webdeveloper, a "fork" could imply permanent
deviation. I
don't think that is the intent of the HTML5+RDFa draft, nor do I
think
that is Mike's goal with his document.
If we must use a word to describe the process, we might want to use
"a
branch of the HTML5 specification", or "additional/alternate
features
for the HTML5 specification". Branching implies the intent to merge
with
the main body of work at a later point in time, which we should be
very
clear about our intent to do so.
Publishing an FPWD is a bigger deal than publishing a WD. First,
FPWD
triggers a patent review clock where an ordinary working draft does
not
(the next step after FPWD to trigger a patent review time limit is
Last
Call). Thus I don't think fast track lazy consensus is appropriate
for
FPWD, as opposed to a normal Working Draft. And indeed, for the
FPWD of
the current HTML5 draft, we held a formal vote and even delayed
some
time after that for closer examination of objections from IBM and
Microsoft reps, among others.
This shouldn't be a major issue for HTML5+RDFa because we've already
had
to go through the patent review cycle and W3C ritualistic blessing
of
chickens with XHTML+RDFa. :P
Since HTML5+RDFa just references the XHTML+RDFa specification for
most
everything, I wouldn't expect it to take as long as the current
HTML5
draft did... but then again, I don't know the details of the FPWD
process.
Second, for a new document to be published as a Working Draft, Sam
has
asked for at least three independent supporters. I don't think
we've
done that assessment for either of the documents you cite.
I don't know what that assessment would consist of, but we might
want to
count the number of people taking part in the conversation on the
RDFa
mailing list regarding HTML5+RDFa, since we're actively discussing
HTML5+RDFa issues on that mailing list right now. Or we could do a
poll.
How was this done for the current HTML5 draft? A poll?
[ ] I support the HTML5+RDFa work and would like to see RDFa
incorporated into the HTML5 specification.
[ ] I do not support the HTML5+RDFa work and would like it removed
from
the HTML5 specification.
And finally, I don't think the author of either of the alternative
drafts has stated their readiness to publish a First Public Working
Draft yet.
There are still some things that are being actively discussed on the
RDFa mailing list regarding HTML family issues (HTML5 is one of
those
languages), but the HTML5+RDFa FPWD could be readied in a very short
time, if needed.
We'll discuss this on the RDFa Task Force call tomorrow.
While I'm sure all of the above obstacles can be overcome, I don't
think
we should miss our heartbeat requirement while waiting to deal with
them.
I agree with Maciej, I don't think we should couple Ian's HTML5 WD,
the
HTML5+RDFa WD, and Mike's document together. No idea what that does
to
the W3C Process, but building heartbeat dependencies between these
alternate specs seems like it may get complicated as the number of
alternate specifications grow.
If however, others would like to accelerate the HTML5+RDFa draft
being
published sooner than later, I can change my priorities to have it
ready
in a couple of days.
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Larry Masinter wrote:
[...] a new draft of the Hixie fork
Just out of interest, who did I fork the spec _from_, if the
document
I'm editing is a fork?
I believe that Larry meant your "branch", which is the main branch.
So this:
+----------- HTML5+RDFa (Manu's branch)
|
------------+----------- HTML5 (Ian's branch - mainline)
------------------------ HTML5 Markup (Mike's branch - mainline)
I think you know this, though, so I don't get your question. Were
you
asserting that you have the mainline branch and I branched from you?
-- manu
--
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Bitmunk 3.1 Released - Browser-based P2P Commerce
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/06/29/browser-based-p2p-commerce/
