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 14:09:32 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OWVJc-0003mR-1Q@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10083





--- Comment #10 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>  2010-07-07 14:09:31 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (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.

In other words, you redefined the scope of the document. 

> 
> > 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.

It is not helpful -- if one looks at the HTML5 spec, and then looks at your
document, the references to Microdata come from out of nowhere. Even now, I
can't figure out why you felt you had to include this information. Separate
from the context of Microdata, and what it is, and how it should be used, the
information is confusing, at best. 


> 
> > --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.

I do not believe you have provided an adequate rationale for making this
change.

You've said that you changed the abstract, so that makes the change OK. You've
said that this is supposedly to help people, yet these oddly bizarre references
to Microdata, separate from the Microdata spec, make no sense at all.

So your rationale is, in my opinion, inadequate. 

My response has been that you have changed the scope of the document, as
witness your change in the abstract. In addition, you're attempting to
integrate Microdata back into HTML5, when the group has already made a decision
that the two are separate. And your rationale for making this choice is, in my
opinion, weak.

Yes, this needs to be escalated to an issue.

-- 
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 14:09:33 UTC

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