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 01:43:44 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OWg9Q-0006Mt-2e@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10083





--- Comment #13 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>  2010-07-08 01:43:42 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> (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.)

But you have changed the scope of the document. It is no longer about HTML,
which is the title of the document. It is HTML+Microdata, as Julian stated
earlier. 

The Microdata material doesn't fit the document, Michael. Microdata is only
important for those people wanting to take this approach for metadata. The data
that you documented would be better within the Microdata document, then in your
reference. 

I would suggest you work with Ian and add this information to the Microdata
document. Then the data is more closely collected to the syntax relevant to it. 

> 
> 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.
>

Again, this is counter to my understanding, and I believe it is counter to
other people's understanding, too. 


> > 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.
>

Then it is more appropriate to include this information in the Microdata
document. Then you would have a self-contained document with all of the
information. Now, all you have is this odd fragments in your document that make
no sense at all. 


> > 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.
>

In other words, you're forcing people into having to access the Microdata
document, when all they're interested in is HTML5, the markup language. Because
without knowing what Microdata is, they have no idea if they need the
information or not. 

Your microdata sections are just hanging there, with no relevance to the other
material in the document. 


> 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.
>

But a person can't even know if they want to skip the info, because they'll not
have the foggiest what the Microdata is for.

> > > 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."
>

Then point-of-use would be to include this information in the Microdata
document, correct? That way Microdata is self-contained.

Again, I'm sure that you could work something out with Ian to include this
information in the Microdata document. Perhaps you could be a co-editor for the
spec?


> 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.

We have to disagree. And I think we're going in circles here.

-- 
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 01:43:45 UTC

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