On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Sergey Chernyshev<sergey.chernys...@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
