Lachlan Hunt wrote:
"The HTML WG is encouraged to provide a mechanism to permit
independently developed vocabularies such as Internationalization Tag
Set (ITS), Ruby, and RDFa to be mixed into HTML documents."
So if somebody claims that RDFa or Microdata are covered by this part of
the charter then it's *natural* to ask how they can fulfill the
requirement.
They fulfil that requirement by allowing the inclusion of *some other*
independent vocabularies. Just because they do not permit the inclusion
of the 3 examples given in the charter, does not mean they don't qualify.
Oh really? OK, let's disagree on that.
And because Microdata is for describing semantics of documents, it is
also covered by:
"A language evolved from HTML4 for describing the semantics of documents
and applications on the World Wide Web. This will be a complete
specification, not a delta specification."
That's an interesting thought, but of course would apply to RDFa as well.
...
Each of those could be included using either RDFa or Microdata, as
they have been designed for doing so.
Of course these are independently developed, and also some kind of
vocabulary. Nobody is disputing that.
So, then do you agree that finding a way to include those would be
covered by the statement "The HTML WG is encouraged to provide a
mechanism to permit independently developed vocabularies", despite them
not being listed explicitly as examples? If not, why not?
No. The charter mentioned three examples of vocabularies, so any
solution that claims to fulfill this charter requirement should better
demonstrate that it can address those examples (or at least some of them).
Best regards, Julian
