Quantcast

Re: HTML+RDFa Heartbeat Draft publishing request

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTML+RDFa Heartbeat Draft publishing request

Manu Sporny
Paul Cotton wrote:
> The Status section of this document needs to be updated:
>
> a) The following text from the first sentence is no longer true:
> "This is the First Public Working Draft...

Fixed.

> b) ... I would like to suggest that you add a paragraph based
> on your summary of changes
>
> "This Working Draft includes the following changes:
>
> * Updating HTML5 coercion to Infoset rules (normative)
> * Clarifying how to extract RDFa attributes via Infoset (informative)
> * Clarifying how to extract RDFa attributes via DOM2 (informative)"

Done.

Larry Masinter wrote:
> In the Abstract section...
> It might help to use "this specification" rather than
> "this document" to avoid overloading "document".

Done.

Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> ]]The rules defined in this document not only apply to HTML5 documents
> in non-XML and XML mode, but also to HTML4 documents interpreted
> through the HTML5 parsing rules.[[
>
> My question/suggestion: Shouldn't that sentence also say that HTML+RDFa
> not only applies to HTML4 but also to XHTML documents when "interpreted
> through the HTML5 parsing rules"?

Agreed and done.

The updated HTML5+RDFa version with corrections is here:

http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/

Diff-marked version against the HTML5+RDFa (Oct 15th 2009) FPWD is here:

http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/diffs/rdfa-diff-20091015-20100115.html

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Monarch - Next Generation REST Web Services
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/12/14/monarch/

Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

RE: HTML+RDFa Heartbeat Draft publishing request

masinter
Manu, I'm sorry for not saying this earlier, but I think the
'status of this document' section still needs work. Three
changes (rationales below):

(1) non-endorsement

< The publication of this document by the W3C as a W3C
< Working Draft does not imply that all of the participants
< in the W3C HTML working group endorse the contents of the
< specification. Indeed, for any section of the specification,
< one can usually find many members of the working group or
< of the W3C as a whole who object strongly to the current text,
< the existence of the section at all, or the idea that the
< working group should even spend time discussing the concept
< of that section.

Proposed rewrite:

> The publication of this document by the W3C as a W3C
> Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the majority
> of members of the W3C HTML working group or the W3C
> as a whole. In particular, there are one or more
> alternate methods of adding data without using
> RDFa namespaces [microdata], discussions of alternate
> extensibility mechanisms [issue-41] which might allow
> other ways of integrating RDFa, as well as concern
> that continued development of this document belongs
> in a different working group.

(2) responsible group

< The W3C HTML Working Group is the W3C working group
<  responsible for this specification's progress
< along the W3C Recommendation track.

proposed rewrite:

> This specification has been developed by the
> RDFa Task Force http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/
> and is currently being published by the W3C HTML
> working group to further discussions there.

(3) Mailing lists:

< Vendors interested in implementing this specification
< before it eventually reaches the Candidate Recommendation
< stage should join the aforementioned mailing lists
< and take part in the discussions.

proposed rewrite:

> Vendors interested in implementing this specification
> should note the status, and are encouraged to join
> the RDFa task force.

========================================================
Rationale for (1)

Reviewers of a document should actually be *informed*
by the "Status" section, rather than given nonsensical
and useless disclaimers ("Objects may be closer
than they appear.") as seems to happen with most
consumer products these days.

I know this text appears in the main HTML5 document, but I don't
think it is appropriate there or here either. It might have
been appropriate there at some time in the past, but we're way
past the point where, for *any* section of the document, one
can *usually* find *many* members of the working group
who object strongly to the text, and especially (for these
"split out" drafts) that there are *many* members who object
to the existence of the specification or sections of it,
or that the working group should time discussing the concept.

We also now have a mechanism, for the main HTML specification,
to indicate which sections are controversial (or at least
those that have open bugs or ISSUEs against them.)

The work on splitting the HTML5 document into sub-documents,
and continuing to label open issues, allows replacing
the useless disclaimer with one that is actually informative.

I see that there are several positions, ranging from
"this document is fine as it is", to "HTML doesn't
need RDFa and RDFa should go away". My own position
is that, although I think RDFa is an interesting
addition to HTML, its addition to HTML should be
based on a general extensibility mechanism
(or possibly a set of mechanisms) rather than as a
special case that is only designed for RDFa,
as has been done here.

=========================
Rationale for (2)

Whether the HTML Working Group is the W3C working group
responsible for this specification's progress along
the W3C Recommendation track should be left open.
Since this statement appears in the "status of this
document" section, it isn't subject to its own caveat,
so I think this should not be left as a fait accompli.

============================
Rationale for (3)

Asking vendors who are interested in RDFa in HTML
to join public-html-comments and take part in
discussions there is counter-productive, since
that isn't where discussions have been held.

Asking people to send comments to public-html-comments
is fine (for now). Asking vendors to join the public-html
mailing list might be OK, but it's a noisy channel
and if all they're interested in is RDFa in HTML,
the RDFa  (X)HTML task force would be a more useful
venue for them.
==============================

Regards,

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net

Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTML+RDFa Heartbeat Draft publishing request

Manu Sporny
On 01/21/2010 06:03 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:
> Manu, I'm sorry for not saying this earlier, but I think the
> 'status of this document' section still needs work. Three
> changes (rationales below)

Hi Larry,

The changes you have proposed, as well as the rationale, seem very
reasonable - thanks for the review.

The only issue is with mailing list migration of the RDFa Task Force to
a Working Group in the coming 2-3 weeks. While all of the changes may
not be exactly your wording, they will be very close and in line with
your rationale.

I'll try to make the changes as soon as I can get around to doing
another edit cycle (this weekend).

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Monarch - Next Generation REST Web Services
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/12/14/monarch/

Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: HTML+RDFa Heartbeat Draft publishing request

Manu Sporny
In reply to this post by masinter
On 01/21/2010 06:03 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:
> Manu, I'm sorry for not saying this earlier, but I think the
> 'status of this document' section still needs work. Three
> changes (rationales below):
>
> (1) non-endorsement

Done.

> (2) responsible group

Done.

> (3) Mailing lists

Done.

The new draft is available here:

http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/

Diff-marked version is here:

http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/diffs/rdfa-diff-20091015-20100115.html

Thanks again for taking the time to review and provide feedback, Larry. :)

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Monarch - Next Generation REST Web Services
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/12/14/monarch/

Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

RE: HTML+RDFa Heartbeat Draft publishing request

Paul Cotton
The latest draft includes the following text:

> There are one or more alternate methods of adding data without using RDFa, such as [microdata].

The [microdata] hyperlink points to http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/microdata.html 

Given that we are about to publish a separate W3C WD for Microdata [see http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/], I would like to suggest that this link be changed to point to that separate W3C WD.  I expect that this kind of change will have to be made later in the publication process when the link to the Microdata FPWD on the TR page is finalized.

/paulc

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329



Loading...