ISSUE-73: Overlap of "predefined vocabularies" with other specifications

predefined-voc

Overlap of "predefined vocabularies" with other specifications

State:
CLOSED
Product:
HTML 5 spec
Raised by:
Julian Reschke
Opened on:
2009-06-03
Description:
Recently, new sections have been added to the spec, defining embedding/extraction of data in various formats, such as vCard, iCalendar, Atom, and BibTex.

The issues mentioned below a primarily about the vCard related stuff, but similar concerns apply to iCalendar and Atom as well (which both are IETF specs as well).

Procedural - the WG is working on trying to find consensus on all
sections of the spec; sections without consensus are to be removed (at
least that's my understanding of the process). Also, the editor himself
announced a "feature freeze" quite some time ago. So, why are we seeing
these new sections without *any* prior discussion?

Spec Size - the spec already is big, and there is no evidence that this
needs to be specified *inside* the HTML5 spec.

Extensibility - the current chapter copies terminology from RFC2426, but
misses it's extensibility hooks, and thus fails to mention things that
have been defined later, such as the IMPP type name.

Parsing - for some types, parsing rules are being rephrased from
RFC2426. There is a risk that they diverge.

Versioning - the IETF is revising vCard, see
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev-07>. Is HTML5
going to freeze the vocabulary at a version that the IETF is currently
obsoleting?

HTML5-SPEC-SECTIONS [predefined-vocabularies predefined-vocabularies-0]

-------------------------------------------------------------
PROPOSED RESOLUTION:
Resolved by a spec change that has moved the predefined vocabularies out of HTML5 and into separate drafts, none of which the HTML5 draft references or has any dependency on.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Related Actions Items:
Related emails:
  1. Re: CfC: Publish HTML5, RDFa heartbeats and Microdata, 2D Context and H:TML as FPWDs (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2010-02-10)
  2. ACTION-166: Recheck status of issues 10 and 73 (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2010-01-07)
  3. Re: CfC: Close ISSUE-73 predefined-voc (ends 2009-12-17) (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-01-03)
  4. {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-12-17: action items, calls for consensus/proposals, task forces (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2009-12-15)
  5. {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-12-17: action items, calls for consensus/proposals, task forces (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2009-12-15)
  6. Re: HTML WG issues scheduled to close Dec 17 comments (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-12-12)
  7. HTML WG issues scheduled to close Dec 17 comments (from masinter@adobe.com on 2009-12-12)
  8. Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-10-29: action items, calls for consensus/proposals, task forces (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2009-12-10)
  9. Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-10-29: action items, calls for consensus/proposals, task forces (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2009-12-10)
  10. {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-10-29: action items, calls for consensus/proposals, task forces (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-12-09)
  11. CfC: Close ISSUE-73 predefined-voc (ends 2009-12-17) (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-12-08)
  12. minutes Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-10-29: issues, action items, calls for consensus/proposals, task forces, F2F... (from cooper@w3.org on 2009-10-29)
  13. Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-10-29: issues, action items, calls for consensus/proposals, task forces, F2F... (from singer@apple.com on 2009-10-29)
  14. {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-10-29: issues, action items, calls for consensus/proposals, task forces, F2F... (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-10-28)
  15. Re: Microdata vocabulary specifications (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-10-05)
  16. Re: Microdata vocabulary specifications (from mike@w3.org on 2009-10-05)
  17. ISSUE-73, was: Microdata vocabulary specifications (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-10-05)
  18. Re: Microdata vocabulary specifications (from mike@w3.org on 2009-10-05)
  19. Producing Atom (was: Microdata vocabulary specifications) (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-10-04)
  20. Re: Microdata vocabulary specifications (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-10-04)
  21. Re: Microdata vocabulary specifications (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-10-04)
  22. Re: Microdata vocabulary specifications (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-10-04)
  23. Re: Microdata vocabulary specifications (from jonas@sicking.cc on 2009-10-04)
  24. Re: Microdata vocabulary specifications (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-10-03)
  25. Re: ISSUE-73 (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-09-10)
  26. Agenda for HTML WG telcon 2009-09-10 - Accessibility TF, Testing TF, etc (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2009-09-09)
  27. FW: Agenda for HTML WG telcon 2009-09-10 - Accessibility TF, Testing TF, etc (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2009-09-09)
  28. ISSUE-73 (was: Agenda for HTML WG telcon 2009-09-10) (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-09-09)
  29. Re: ISSUE-73 (Overlap of 'predefined vocabularies' with other specifications), was: Concerns about new section 'predefined vocabularies' (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-07-24)
  30. Re: ISSUE-73 (Overlap of 'predefined vocabularies' with other specifications), was: Concerns about new section 'predefined vocabularies' (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-07-24)
  31. RE: ISSUE-73 (Overlap of 'predefined vocabularies' with other specifications), was: Concerns about new section 'predefined vocabularies' (from masinter@adobe.com on 2009-07-23)
  32. Re: ISSUE-73 (Overlap of 'predefined vocabularies' with other specifications), was: Concerns about new section 'predefined vocabularies' (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-07-23)
  33. Re: ISSUE-73 (Overlap of 'predefined vocabularies' with other specifications), was: Concerns about new section 'predefined vocabularies' (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-07-23)
  34. Re: ISSUE-73 (Overlap of 'predefined vocabularies' with other specifications), was: Concerns about new section 'predefined vocabularies' (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-07-21)
  35. Re: ISSUE-73 (Overlap of 'predefined vocabularies' with other specifications), was: Concerns about new section 'predefined vocabularies' (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-07-21)
  36. Re: ISSUE-73 (Overlap of 'predefined vocabularies' with other specifications), was: Concerns about new section 'predefined vocabularies' (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-07-21)
  37. Re: ISSUE-73 (Overlap of 'predefined vocabularies' with other specifications), was: Concerns about new section 'predefined vocabularies' (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-07-21)
  38. Re: ISSUE-73 (Overlap of 'predefined vocabularies' with other specifications), was: Concerns about new section 'predefined vocabularies' (from jonas@sicking.cc on 2009-07-16)
  39. Re: ISSUE-73 (Overlap of 'predefined vocabularies' with other specifications), was: Concerns about new section 'predefined vocabularies' (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-07-16)
  40. Re: ISSUE-73 (Overlap of 'predefined vocabularies' with other specifications), was: Concerns about new section 'predefined vocabularies' (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-07-16)
  41. Re: ISSUE-73 (Overlap of 'predefined vocabularies' with other specifications), was: Concerns about new section 'predefined vocabularies' (from jgraham@opera.com on 2009-07-16)
  42. Re: ISSUE-73 (Overlap of 'predefined vocabularies' with other specifications), was: Concerns about new section 'predefined vocabularies' (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-07-16)
  43. Re: ISSUE-73 (Overlap of 'predefined vocabularies' with other specifications), was: Concerns about new section 'predefined vocabularies' (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-07-16)
  44. Re: ISSUE-73 (Overlap of 'predefined vocabularies' with other specifications), was: Concerns about new section 'predefined vocabularies' (from jgraham@opera.com on 2009-07-15)
  45. Re: ISSUE-73 (Overlap of 'predefined vocabularies' with other specifications), was: Concerns about new section 'predefined vocabularies' (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-07-08)
  46. Re: ISSUE-73 (Overlap of 'predefined vocabularies' with other specifications), was: Concerns about new section 'predefined vocabularies' (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-07-08)
  47. ISSUE-73 (Overlap of 'predefined vocabularies' with other specifications), was: Concerns about new section 'predefined vocabularies' (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-06-10)
  48. ISSUE-73 (predefined-voc): Overlap of 'predefined vocabularies' with other specifications [HTML 5 spec] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2009-06-03)

Related notes:

Related mail thread starts here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0113.html

Julian Reschke, 3 Jun 2009, 11:48:14

Sent summary and pointer to IETF Apps Area, plus vcarddav and calsify mailing lists:

http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/ietf-calsify/2009-August/002199.html

Julian Reschke, 10 Aug 2009, 12:58:38

[MikeSmith]: predefined vocabs have now been moved out of HTML5 and into separate drafts; see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0087.html & http://dev.w3.org/html5/mdvcard/ & http://dev.w3.org/html5/mdvevent/ & http://dev.w3.org/html5/mdwork/ and note that HTML5 does not reference those drafts nor have any dependency on them.

5 Oct 2009, 05:45:09

This was closed by amicable resolution.

Maciej Stachowiak, 5 Jan 2010, 22:28:32

Predefined vocabs show up again in separated-out Microdata proposal (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0042.html)

Julian Reschke, 3 Feb 2010, 10:37:31

Changelog:

Created issue 'Overlap of "predefined vocabularies" with other specifications' nickname predefined-voc owned by Julian Reschke on product HTML 5 spec, description 'Recently, new sections have been added to the spec, defining embedding/extraction of data in various formats, such as vCard, iCalendar, Atom, and BibTex.

The issues mentioned below a primarily about the vCard related stuff, but similar concerns apply to iCalendar and Atom as well (which both are IETF specs as well).

Procedural - the WG is working on trying to find consensus on all
sections of the spec; sections without consensus are to be removed (at
least that's my understanding of the process). Also, the editor himself
announced a "feature freeze" quite some time ago. So, why are we seeing
these new sections without *any* prior discussion?

Spec Size - the spec already is big, and there is no evidence that this
needs to be specified *inside* the HTML5 spec.

Extensibility - the current chapter copies terminology from RFC2426, but
misses it's extensibility hooks, and thus fails to mention things that
have been defined later, such as the IMPP type name.

Parsing - for some types, parsing rules are being rephrased from
RFC2426. There is a risk that they diverge.

Versioning - the IETF is revising vCard, see
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev-07>. Is HTML5
going to freeze the vocabulary at a version that the IETF is currently
obsoleting?

' non-public

Julian Reschke, 3 Jun 2009, 11:47:29

Status changed to 'open'

Dan Connolly, 30 Jul 2009, 16:29:02

Description changed to 'Recently, new sections have been added to the spec, defining embedding/extraction of data in various formats, such as vCard, iCalendar, Atom, and BibTex.

The issues mentioned below a primarily about the vCard related stuff, but similar concerns apply to iCalendar and Atom as well (which both are IETF specs as well).

Procedural - the WG is working on trying to find consensus on all
sections of the spec; sections without consensus are to be removed (at
least that's my understanding of the process). Also, the editor himself
announced a "feature freeze" quite some time ago. So, why are we seeing
these new sections without *any* prior discussion?

Spec Size - the spec already is big, and there is no evidence that this
needs to be specified *inside* the HTML5 spec.

Extensibility - the current chapter copies terminology from RFC2426, but
misses it's extensibility hooks, and thus fails to mention things that
have been defined later, such as the IMPP type name.

Parsing - for some types, parsing rules are being rephrased from
RFC2426. There is a risk that they diverge.

Versioning - the IETF is revising vCard, see
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev-07>. Is HTML5
going to freeze the vocabulary at a version that the IETF is currently
obsoleting?

HTML5-SPEC-SECTIONS [predefined-vocabularies]
'

James Graham, 21 Aug 2009, 11:37:28

Description changed to 'Recently, new sections have been added to the spec, defining embedding/extraction of data in various formats, such as vCard, iCalendar, Atom, and BibTex.

The issues mentioned below a primarily about the vCard related stuff, but similar concerns apply to iCalendar and Atom as well (which both are IETF specs as well).

Procedural - the WG is working on trying to find consensus on all
sections of the spec; sections without consensus are to be removed (at
least that's my understanding of the process). Also, the editor himself
announced a "feature freeze" quite some time ago. So, why are we seeing
these new sections without *any* prior discussion?

Spec Size - the spec already is big, and there is no evidence that this
needs to be specified *inside* the HTML5 spec.

Extensibility - the current chapter copies terminology from RFC2426, but
misses it's extensibility hooks, and thus fails to mention things that
have been defined later, such as the IMPP type name.

Parsing - for some types, parsing rules are being rephrased from
RFC2426. There is a risk that they diverge.

Versioning - the IETF is revising vCard, see
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev-07>. Is HTML5
going to freeze the vocabulary at a version that the IETF is currently
obsoleting?

HTML5-SPEC-SECTIONS [predefined-vocabularies predefined-vocabularies-0]
'

Julian Reschke, 25 Aug 2009, 11:47:39

Description changed to 'Recently, new sections have been added to the spec, defining embedding/extraction of data in various formats, such as vCard, iCalendar, Atom, and BibTex.

The issues mentioned below a primarily about the vCard related stuff, but similar concerns apply to iCalendar and Atom as well (which both are IETF specs as well).

Procedural - the WG is working on trying to find consensus on all
sections of the spec; sections without consensus are to be removed (at
least that's my understanding of the process). Also, the editor himself
announced a "feature freeze" quite some time ago. So, why are we seeing
these new sections without *any* prior discussion?

Spec Size - the spec already is big, and there is no evidence that this
needs to be specified *inside* the HTML5 spec.

Extensibility - the current chapter copies terminology from RFC2426, but
misses it's extensibility hooks, and thus fails to mention things that
have been defined later, such as the IMPP type name.

Parsing - for some types, parsing rules are being rephrased from
RFC2426. There is a risk that they diverge.

Versioning - the IETF is revising vCard, see
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev-07>. Is HTML5
going to freeze the vocabulary at a version that the IETF is currently
obsoleting?

HTML5-SPEC-SECTIONS [predefined-vocabularies predefined-vocabularies-0]

-------------------------------------------------------------
PROPOSED RESOLUTION:
No change to the specification is now needed, because the predefined vocabularies have been moved out of HTML5 and into separate drafts, and the HTML5 draft does not reference those drafts nor have any dependency on them.
-------------------------------------------------------------'

Michael[tm] Smith, 5 Oct 2009, 08:09:28

Description changed to 'Recently, new sections have been added to the spec, defining embedding/extraction of data in various formats, such as vCard, iCalendar, Atom, and BibTex.

The issues mentioned below a primarily about the vCard related stuff, but similar concerns apply to iCalendar and Atom as well (which both are IETF specs as well).

Procedural - the WG is working on trying to find consensus on all
sections of the spec; sections without consensus are to be removed (at
least that's my understanding of the process). Also, the editor himself
announced a "feature freeze" quite some time ago. So, why are we seeing
these new sections without *any* prior discussion?

Spec Size - the spec already is big, and there is no evidence that this
needs to be specified *inside* the HTML5 spec.

Extensibility - the current chapter copies terminology from RFC2426, but
misses it's extensibility hooks, and thus fails to mention things that
have been defined later, such as the IMPP type name.

Parsing - for some types, parsing rules are being rephrased from
RFC2426. There is a risk that they diverge.

Versioning - the IETF is revising vCard, see
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev-07>. Is HTML5
going to freeze the vocabulary at a version that the IETF is currently
obsoleting?

HTML5-SPEC-SECTIONS [predefined-vocabularies predefined-vocabularies-0]

-------------------------------------------------------------
PROPOSED RESOLUTION:
Resolved by a spec change that has moved the predefined vocabularies out of HTML5 and into separate drafts, none of which the HTML5 draft references or has any dependency on.
-------------------------------------------------------------'

Michael[tm] Smith, 5 Oct 2009, 08:10:58

Status changed to 'closed'

17 Dec 2009, 17:31:32


Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Chairs, Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>, Staff Contact
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: index.php,v 1.325 2014-09-10 21:42:02 ted Exp $