[rfc-i] Potential RFC format approach: HTML
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sat Mar 24 11:44:19 PDT 2012
On 2012-03-24 15:32, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> On 3/24/12 2:33 AM, "Julian Reschke"<julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>> +1 in general. The requirement "expectation that it will continue to
>> work" isn't really helping, because in practice, anything that is widely
>> used today isn't going to go away.
> I was thinking of stuff on the way out, like blink, and using strong instead
<blink> never was in any HTML spec, I think. <strong> may be
non-conforming in HTML5, but will continue to work. Trust me.
>>> - Define a very strict structure, using a microformat/semantic style, that
>>> makes it easy to pull out information semantically with a little bit of
>>> jQuery in post-processing tools. Make a choice about XML-style
>>> well-formedness, which is probably not needed.
>> +-0; it's possible to embed all metadata in the HTML, but that makes us
>> depend on conventions (microformats) or specs that are currently a bit
>> in flux (RDFa vs Microdata). I'd prefer to focus on the set of
>> information we need, and to make sure that they are properly captured in
>> the source format (as opposed to the HTML which I currently would see as
>> a publication format only).
> Ah. I'd like HTML to be the source format if possible. I'm not talking
> about getting overly standars-y in the definition; when I said
> "microformat/semantic style", I meant using divs marked up with meaningful
> semantic class names, rather than picking a side in RDFa vs. Microdata.
Yes, that would be a microformat (a convention).
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest