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: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:29:41 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OWezl-0003Ef-KK@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10083





--- Comment #11 from Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>  2010-07-08 00:29:41 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> > 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. 

No, not in other words. I don't think that characterization is accurate. If you
are going to continue to assert that, please look at the specific changes I
made and then look back at what I had there before I made those changes and
tell me how what I added changed the scope.

This is what I previously had in the Abstract, in full:

[[
This non-normative reference describes the HTML markup language and provides
details to help producers of HTML content create documents that conform to the
language. It is intended to complement the normative conformance criteria
defined in the HTML5: A vocabulary and associated APIs for HTML and XHTML
specification [HTML5]. By design, this reference does not describe related APIs
in detail, nor attempt to explain how implementations that are consumers of
HTML content are meant to process documents (those areas are covered by the
HTML5 specification itself), nor attempt to also be a tutorial or “how to”
authoring guide.
]]

Note that by design it very intentionally did not include language saying, for
example, that it "only provides details to help producers of HTML content
create documents that conform to the language" or even something like
"primarily provides details". Similarly, it did not say that it is "only
intended to complement the normative conformance criteria defined in" the HTML
spec, nor "exclusively intended" nor again even "primarily" or whatever.

The omission of "only" or any such other qualifying language in that Abstract
was not an accident or an oversight. It was intentional. I omitted it because
it was in fact intended for the scope to be restricted in the way you are
asserting that it is.

Here in full and for the record is what I changed in to in an attempt to
address your comment:

[[
This non-normative reference describes the HTML markup language and provides
details to help producers of HTML content create documents that conform to the
language. It is intended to complement the normative conformance criteria
defined in the HTML5: A vocabulary and associated APIs for HTML and XHTML
specification [HTML5], as well as information in related deliverables published
by the HTML Working Group and from other sources. By design, this reference
does not describe related APIs in detail, nor attempt to explain how
implementations that are consumers of HTML content are meant to process
documents (those areas are covered by the HTML5 specification itself), nor
attempt to also be a tutorial or “how to” authoring guide.
]]

That is, I added the part, "as well as information in related deliverables
published by the HTML Working Group and from other sources". As I noted in
previous comments, the "other sources" part is there because I had already
information in the document from other sources; specifically, information taken
from the WebKit default UA stylesheet. So I guess I could have changed it to
read just, "as well as information from other sources" and it would have been
accurate. But I added "in related deliverables published by the HTML Working
Group" for the sake of trying to be more precise as well. (I suppose I will
eventually add an explicit listing somewhere of what other sources it does have
information from -- though I don't think the Abstract will be the appropriate
place to go into those details.)

Anyway, I don't agree that the addition I made constitutes a change to the
scope of the document. And my intent in making that addition was certainly not
to change the scope. And I think what I quoted verbatim does not support the
assertion that I changed the scope.

> > 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.

I will fully concede that'd be the case if you *only* looked at the HTML5 spec
and not at the Microdata spec as well. But again, this document is not intended
to only provide information that only corresponds to content in just the HTML5
spec.

> Even now, I
> can't figure out why you felt you had to include this information.

I said in previous comments that I added it because I think it can be useful
for people who want to use Microdata in HTML documents, and who would benefit
from having relevant reference information at point-of-use.

> Separate
> from the context of Microdata, and what it is, and how it should be used, the
> information is confusing, at best. 

I don't agree that as it currently stands it's confusing at best. Not by a long
shot. I believe that people who know something about Microdata already and are
doing something with it are going to find that section not confusing at all.
And people who don't have use for the information can just skip over it.

And there is a other information in the document that requires context provided
elsewhere and that is not meant to be immediately clear or useful to all
reader. The DOM interface sections, for example, or not going to mean much to
somebody who doesn't yet know anything about DOM scripting, and who only wants
to write Web documents with no scripting. I will concede that they might be
confused by those DOM interfaces parts of the document. But its a reference
document, not a tutorial, so again, they can just skip over those parts and
just use the parts they need.

> > 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.

For the record here, the exact rationale I gave is: "I think it can be useful
for people who want to use Microdata in HTML documents, and who would benefit
from having relevant reference information at point-of-use."

I've also made it clear that I very intentionally never restricted the scope of
the document in such a way that would limit it to only providing information
from the HTML5 and not from other sources (and pointed out that it already
included information from other sources.)

> You've said that you changed the abstract, so that makes the change OK.

No, that is not what I said. The change was OK before I added words to the
abstract.

I added text to the abstract not to make the change OK but instead as a
good-faith attempt to address your comment.

> 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.

"oddly bizarre"?

As I pointed out earlier in this comment, I don't think the DOM interfaces make
much sense at all to somebody who's not familiar with DOM scripting. And the
"Typical default display properties" section is not going to make any sense at
all to somebody who doesn't know anything about CSS.

> So your rationale is, in my opinion, inadequate.

I respect that opinion, but I don't think the assertions you've made above
strongly support a conclusion that my "be useful for people who want to use
Microdata in HTML documents, and who would benefit from having relevant
reference information at point-of-use" rationale is inadequate.

> My response has been that you have changed the scope of the document, as
> witness your change in the abstract.

The text I added to the abstract does not change the scope. I added it in an
attempt to address your comment. I don't think the added text is strictly
necessary, but I do think it's an improvement to the abstract, so I would like
to keep it rather than, say, feeling like I know need to remove it because of a
claim that I added in order to change the scope (instead of for the actual
reason I have given here).

> In addition, you're attempting to
> integrate Microdata back into HTML5, when the group has already made a decision
> that the two are separate.

I'm not attempting to integrate Microdata back into HTML5, any more than I'm
attempting to integrate CSS in HTML by including the "Typical default display
properties" section. 

> And your rationale for making this choice is, in my
> opinion, weak.

Again, I respect your opinion about it, but I don't agree that my "be useful
for people who want to use Microdata in HTML documents, and who would benefit
from having relevant reference information at point-of-use" rationale is weak.

-- 
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 Thursday, 8 July 2010 00:29:43 UTC

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