[ietf-calsify] Call for feedback on HTML5 spec on "predefined vocabularies"

Eliot Lear lear at cisco.com
Fri Sep 18 08:37:41 PDT 2009


Dear all,

I recently had a thread with Julian in which he feels pretty strongly
about the below message regarding HTML5, and the vocabulary for
calendaring that is proposed.  I suggest that people who are interested
review the proposed specification below and comment either on one of
these lists or to Julian directly.

Eliot

On 8/10/09 2:21 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (cross-posted to IETF apps-discuss, plus vcarddav and calsify mailing lists)
>
> the W3C HTML Working Group is currently preparing a new Working Draft 
> for HTML5. This will be based on the current Editor's Draft at 
> <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html>).
>
> A significant change since the last Working Draft is the introduction of 
> "microdata", a way to augment the markup with semantics, similar to and 
> competing with RDFa and microformats in general (see 
> <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#microdata>).
>
> As part of introducing microdata, the spec also defines several 
> "predefined vocabularies". Some of them are based on IETF formats (and 
> this is why I'm writing this particular email).
>
> One of these vocabularies is "vcard" (see 
> <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#vcard>). As far as I can 
> tell, the HTML spec more or less duplicates information from RFC 2426, 
> and while doing so also introduces specific compliance criteria. It does 
> *not* refer to 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev-08>, so, as far 
> as I can tell, it would hardwire the vocabulary to a soon-to-be-outdated 
> version of the spec, and also removes the inherent extensibility model.
>
> Another predefined vocabulary is "vevent" (see 
> <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#vevent>), to which similar 
> observations apply.
>
> I have talked to this to many W3C and IETF people, and as far as I can 
> tell, almost all of them consider this to be a Bad Idea. In particular, 
> it seems that the author has not even tried to co-ordinate with the two 
> applicable IETF Working Groups (I just checked the mailing list 
> archives, and couldn't find anything, but maybe I'm missing something).
>
> I'm not sure whether the two working groups have considered this issue 
> yet. I encourage to look at the spec now 
> (<http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html>), or as soon as a new 
> Working Draft is published.
>
> In case the Calsify and/or Vcarddav Working Groups want to comment on 
> this, I encourage the chairs to send feedback directly to the W3C HTML 
> WG, so that the feedback gets the proper attention.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-calsify mailing list
> ietf-calsify at osafoundation.org
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-calsify
>
>   



More information about the ietf-calsify mailing list