W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2009

Re: Dropping Microdata entirely

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:28:32 -0800
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <03BF5AE7-4F7A-473C-AC96-10B87B34BE9F@apple.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>

On Dec 5, 2009, at 6:58 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:

> I had forgotten about the TAG request to remove Microdata[1]. This bug
> did get tied to Issue 76.

The TAG's request was to remove Microdata from the main spec. We  
confirmed that they have no objection to publishing it separately.

> If it is the proper issue, then I will be writing a change proposal
> specifically about removing Microdata. It won't be a counter-proposal.
> Chairs, is this acceptable, even though, technically, I may be beyond
> deadlines?
> I can have the proposal finished before next week's teleconference.

Technically, a Change Proposal that didn't recommend publishing  
Microdata as a separate spec in addition to removing it from the main  
spec would not prevent us from ever publishing it. Nor does Manu's  
entirely require us to publish it. To publish a new draft, it would  
have to meet the FPWD requirements (three independent contributors and  
passes an FPWD resolution). The way to opposte that would be to object  
to the FPWD resolution when it comes up. I don't think a Change  
Proposal can really require the Working Group to decide one way or  
another on a future FPWD resolution.

Given this, if you have additional rationale to back up removing  
Microdata from the main spec, I suggest you take a shot at working  
with Manu to incorporate it into a single Change Proposal before  
making a separate one. If you find you can't work with him, then a  
separate Change Proposal would be fine. However, the Chairs would like  
to move on this issue soon. While we have not decided on a timeline  
yet, we probably won't grant significant time for additional alternate  

Addressing your earlier point:

> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Shelley Powers  
> <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I had thought about writing a change proposal suggesting we drop
>> Microdata entirely, but this doesn't seem to fit Issue 76, which has,
>> unfortunately, tangled RDFa and Microdata together. I want to address
>> Microdata by itself.

The Working Group has taken some action to address the RDFa aspect of  
ISSUE-76, namely we have published HTML+RDFa as an independent draft.  
Manu's Change Proposal seeks to address the remainder of the issue by  
takine Microdata out of the main spec. It does not suggest any further  
changes for RDFa, though it does cite RDFa as rationale.

Effectively, ISSUE-76 now just represents what to do with Microdata. I  
don't believe there is remaining controversy about what to do with RDFa.

>> I think this is something we should discuss, as has been noted in
>> other of the discussion threads. Ian also brought it up[1], as have
>> others in the discussion thread related to Tab's counter-proposal[2].
>> Should I start a new bug specific to this?

I think a new bug or issue would be redundant.

Received on Saturday, 5 December 2009 20:29:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:54 UTC