canvas 2d context
Encrypted Media Extensions
HTML 5 spec
HTML 5: The Markup Language
HTML WG website
HTML5 differences from HTML4
HTML5 Spec - PR Blockers
Media Source Extensions
pre-LC1 alt techniques
pre-LC1 authoring guide
pre-LC1 HTML 5 spec
Erika Doyle Navara
Philippe Le Hégaret
Joshue O Connor
HTML+RDFa uses indirect binding of prefixes, similar in spirit and syntax to Namespaces in XML. Some argue that this is intrinsically too complicated to be a good design for a Web technology:
"The use of prefixes that can be bound to arbitrary strings then combined with
other strings to form a third set of strings is IMHO too complicated for a
technology intended for broad Web deployment (e.g. in text/html)...
The problems with prefixes that can be bound to arbitrary strings then combined
with other strings to form a third set of string are documented and
demonstrable. The examples you gave are either things that don't use such
prefixes (like URIs), or that do and have not had anywhere near the level of
deployed success that HTML has (like XML namespaces).
This bug is not arguing against RDFa. It's arguing against a particular design
decision in RDFa that is not intrinsic to RDFa's design goals."
Others disagree, and think this design is fine, or at least necessary.
The scope of this issue is to determine whether to remove or replace the prefix mechanism of HTML+RDFa, or leave it as-is.
Related bugzilla bug: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7670
(Raised on behalf of Ian Hickson)
Add notes (no markup allowed, URIs get automatically hyperlinked):
WG Decision: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0689.html