W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > July 2010

[Bug 10083] Remove references to Microdata from within the document

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 13:51:28 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OWV28-00033j-Mf@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10083





--- Comment #9 from Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>  2010-07-07 13:51:27 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> If you're redefining the scope of this document, you should discuss it in the
> group, first.

I'm not redefining the scope of the document. The scope of the document has not
changed. Before I made the recent addition to the Abstract, the scope was not
explicitly limited to only providing information strictly about the HTML5 spec.
The text I added in response to your comment does not change the scope -- it
simply adds some words to the Abstract in an attempt to provide more clarity
about what the scope actually is.

> The whole point for this document was to supposedly strip away much of the
> information about the APIs and other peripheral information that has made its
> way into HTML5 and focus purely on the syntax.

That is a big part of the point of this document, for sure. But it is not the
whole point nor has it ever been the whole point -- the document is not meant
to focus purely on just the syntax.

> Microdata is not part of the syntax. 
> 
> To reference it is to begin the process in your document that has happened
> within the HTML5 document--bloat it by introducing irrelevant material.

I think it should go without saying that judgments about what amounts to bloat
and introduction of irrelevant material are always subjective. I will say that
I'm sensitive to the bloat argument, because one of my design goals for this
document has always been too keep it minimal. (And I guess what amounts to
being minimal is also subjective.) But that said, I think the particular
addition of this Microdata property-value info is, relatively, a very small
addition, and not bloat. It amounts to being a single sentence in each element
page.

About whether what it's introducing is irrelevant, that seems to me to be
something that reasonable people can disagree about. I don't personally find it
irrelevant and I believe there are users of the document who will find it
highly relevant.

>From the very beginning when I wrote the first editor's draft of this doc and
announced it, people were requesting that I add things to it. One thing that
several people requested early on was that I add the DOM IDLs to it -- because
they wanted them at point of use in the same document. So I added those -- even
though it was not information that was necessary for determining document
conformance. I also figured it would be useful to have some info in the same
doc that provided details about UA rendering behavior. So I added the 'Typical
default display properties" section -- again, even though that was necessary
for determining document conformance.

> Your
> introducing this material seems more of a political decision than a technical
> one: trying to re-introduce Microdata as a part of HTML5, when the group has
> made a decision that it is _not_ part of HTML5.

My decision to add it was not a political one. I hope you can take my word on
that and we won't need to spend time discussing it further.

> And why Microdata? Why not RDFa, too?

Because I don't know what content I could add to that doc as a per-element
section that would provide similar information about RDFa. If you have specific
suggestions about what I could add, please let me know.

> After all, it's also a document of the
> HTML WG. Again, singling out one and not the other is a political decision, not
> a technical one

My decision to add it was not a political one. Now that I have said that
clearly, I hope I won't need to repeat it again and we can move on. To be very
clear: My intent for the change was simply to add some information that some
users of the document might find useful, and might be glad to have at point of
use in this doc. That's it.

> --and again, one that is significant enough to have been
> discussed in the group before making such a unilateral change. 

I don't think it's any more of a unilateral change than the change I made that
added the DOM IDLs, or the change I made that added the "Typical default
display properties". 

> If you refuse to remove references to Microdata, this item will need to be
> escalated to an issue. Your "fix" is not a fix.

I'm not refusing. I'm responding to one request you made as a spec comment by
providing, in good faith, an initial disposition (per the HTML WG decision
policy) that I personally believe is the correct disposition for the comment.

I'm not at all claiming that it has been "fixed" to your satisfaction. Clearly
it has not been. The "fixed" state is just what we are limited to in bugzilla
for representing that particular condition I just describe. I don't know what
other state to put it in at this point other than that -- because I don't think
the description of the intended scope that you provided in your initial comment
is accurate, and I think it would be a mistake for me to make a change based on
a rationale drawn from something that I don't think is accurate, and that I
cannot agree with.

If there is some part of your request that I have missed or ignored, or if you
have more to add as rationale for the change you requested, than the right
thing to do is to re-open it here, rather than prematurely escalating it.

-- 
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 Wednesday, 7 July 2010 13:51:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:30:51 UTC