- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:15:35 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7542
Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|WONTFIX |
--- Comment #2 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> 2009-09-18 22:15:35 ---
The emails that drove your decision, which I linked in the bug[1] listed
arguments, rather than requirements, but there were some requirements from Dan
Brickley, Manu Sporny, Charles McCathieNevile, Julian Reschke, Ben Adida, and
Kingsley Idehen. There were a couple of other entries, by an Alex, but I'm not
sure who this person is. And the entries by Henri and TJ were along the lines
of disagreements with the use cases, not use case entries themselves.
The Wiki mentioned in your May email also had entries that were predominately
by RDF/RDFa folk.
Question: did you ask any of the people who submitted original use cases
whether microdata met their requirements? That's not a complicated question,
nor is it irrelevant. In fact it is exceptionally relevant.
When a query was made whether anyone liked the section, the few people who
responded affirmatively were all people who did not provide any use case, as
far as I could determine from the documentation you provided.
Therefore, microdata did not meet the needs of the use case submitters, and
hence has no justification for continued inclusion in the specification.
I have no misconceptions about this section. I know exactly why the section was
added.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 18 September 2009 22:15:51 UTC