Conversation

Notices

1. Sarven Capadisli microformats , RDFa

   I feel that #HTML5 is heading in the wrong direction. Recently: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#microdata !rdfa !microformats

   Sunday, 10-May-09 21:44:40 UTC from xmpp
   • Marjolein Katsma

     @csarven oh no... they're still at it with "This specification defines the term URL" #HTML5 <shudder/>

     Sunday, 10-May-09 21:54:03 UTC
   • Martin McEvoy

     @csarven its interesting though #html5 microdata is kind of like #rdfa and #microformats

     Sunday, 10-May-09 22:02:28 UTC
   • Sarven Capadisli Martin McEvoy

     @weborganics "valid reversed DNS identifer", for real? How is that /better/ than using CURIEs? It'd be great to see some supporting data.

     Sunday, 10-May-09 22:11:25 UTC
   • Martin McEvoy

     @csarven indeed, the trouble with curies is they are prefixed which may take a lot of convincing in #html5. namespaces are bad....blah blah

     Sunday, 10-May-09 22:32:06 UTC
   • Stephane Daury

     @csarven: can you elaborate on your HTML5 opinion? Curious to hear your perspective.

     Monday, 11-May-09 00:18:29 UTC
   • Sarven Capadisli Stephane Daury

     @stephdau #HTML5 has/is turning out to be a bloated spec. Reinvents RDFa w/o using NS. Introduces workarounds that aren't necessarily better

     Monday, 11-May-09 00:31:29 UTC
   • Pier-Luc Petitclerc Stephane Daury

     @stephdau Up for a beer or dinner on Friday? 5 a 7 maybe?

     Monday, 11-May-09 00:42:55 UTC
   • Stephane Daury

     @csarven: HTML5: agreed. Still prefer it over XHTML2, but...

     Monday, 11-May-09 13:28:28 UTC
   • Stephen Paul Weber Stephane Daury

     @stephdau what do you have against XHTML2?

     Monday, 11-May-09 18:02:17 UTC
   • Stephane Daury Stephen Paul Weber

     @singpolyma: as a theoretical draft, nothing. As a practical spec, the fact that it' won't be useful for at least another 5 years...

     Monday, 11-May-09 18:16:12 UTC
   • Stephen Paul Weber Stephane Daury

     @stephdau you mean the fact that it's not well-implemented? Yeah, that's why I use XHTML1.1 for now :) The HTML5 jerks aren't helping

     Monday, 11-May-09 18:17:20 UTC
   • Stephane Daury Stephen Paul Weber

     @singpolyma: but the delay's not the standard's form. It's the industry's. HTML5 is simply more realistic and is already being implemented.

     Monday, 11-May-09 18:17:36 UTC
   • Stephane Daury Stephen Paul Weber

     @singpolyma: errata in last notice: "not the standard's form" -> "not the standard's fault"

     Monday, 11-May-09 18:18:29 UTC
   • Stephen Paul Weber Stephane Daury

     @stephdau HTML5 is already being implemented because it's the crap the browser makers wanted to build anyway

     Monday, 11-May-09 18:18:38 UTC
   • Stephen Paul Weber Stephane Daury

     @stephdau also, more realistic? HTML5 invents so much weird stuff. XHTML2 was just the next logical step.

     Monday, 11-May-09 18:19:49 UTC
   • Stephane Daury Stephen Paul Weber

     @singpolyma: yup, my point exactly. I'll happily use XHTML2 when it'll be a universal standard, but the sad truth is HTML5 will be it b4.

     Monday, 11-May-09 18:19:50 UTC
   • Stephen Paul Weber Stephane Daury

     @stephdau if you want a universal standard use HTML4.01, edgy people use XHTML1.1, no-one *really* uses HTML5, just bits of it

     Monday, 11-May-09 18:20:38 UTC
   • Stephane Daury Stephen Paul Weber

     @singpolyma: XHTML1.1 is fine by me. You're right about the HTML5 bits, like <video>. I see no one supporting XHTML2 XFORMs though.

     Monday, 11-May-09 18:28:28 UTC
   • Stephane Daury Stephen Paul Weber

     @singpolyma: in the end, I'll use both and either, but I just think one will be usable much faster than the other, whether I like it or not.

     Monday, 11-May-09 18:29:41 UTC
   • Daniel E. Renfer Stephen Paul Weber

     @singpolyma It's really a shame that XHTML2 hasn't been given a fair shake. It shows real promise IMO

     Monday, 11-May-09 18:40:01 UTC