I'm only considering the projects I was going to work on and can't talk for
all the things MediaWiki team should have in mind - I was going to add
support for RDFa (
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/) which currently is W3C
Recomendation, but only for XHTML and even though HTML profiles (or whatever
they are called) are in the works they are not ready yet.
Switching to non-recomendation will mean that implementing RDFa in standard
compliant form will have to be postponed for quite a while.
As for commotion I mentioned, I believe there is at least tension between
RDFa world and "Microdata" world that is being pushed along HTML 5 spec.
Thank you,
Sergey
--
Sergey Chernyshev
http://www.sergeychernyshev.com/
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Aryeh Gregor
<Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com<Simetrical%2Bwikilist@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Sergey
> Chernyshev<sergey.chernyshev(a)gmail.com
wrote:
> > Just my 2 cents - I don't think that switching to new not yet
W3C
> > Recomendation is a good idea - many extensions and features are not yet
> > finished (e.g. RDFa support for it)
>
> Much of the spec is very stable. We would not be using any part
> that's likely to change -- in most cases, only parts that have
> multiple interoperable implementations. Such parts of the spec will
> not change significantly; that's a basic principle of most W3C specs'
> development processes (and HTML 5's in particular).
>
> We use other W3C specs that nominally aren't stable, e.g., some parts
> of CSS. We used plenty of CSS 2.1 when that was still nominally a
> Working Draft. We use multi-column layout (at least in our content on
> enwiki) even though that's a Working Draft. Etc. Given the way the
> W3C works, it's not reasonable at all to require that the *whole* spec
> be a Candidate Recommendation or whatever. You can make a
> feature-by-feature stability assessment pretty easily in most cases:
> if it has multiple interoperable implementations, it's stable and can
> be used; if it doesn't, it's not very useful anyway, so who cares?
>
> > and considering a huge commotion in this
> > area it might not be a very good decision.
>
> There is no more commotion. XHTML 2.0 is officially dead. The
> working group is disbanded. HTML 5 is the only version of HTML that
> is being developed.
>
>
> I don't think you've raised any substantive objections here.
> *Practically* speaking, what reason is there not to begin moving to
> HTML 5 now?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>