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

Re: Dropping Microdata entirely

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 10:01:13 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0270912070801m40aa0067vbe200ad247c788eb@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:45 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>
>>
>> Ian is confused about Manu's proposal, and I think you might want to
>> provide some clarification on this. When he asked me in the other
>> thread about supporting Manu's proposal, he seemed to believe this
>> means that if Manu's proposal goes through, a separate specification
>> for Microdata is automatically created, and proposed for FPWD and LC.
>>
>> From Ian's email[1]
>>
>> "I think you misunderstood Maciej's response.
>>
>> The net effect of Manu's change proposal would be a spec for Microdata
>> being proposed for FPWD and LC."
>>
>> From what you've said, this isn't true. As you've said, this would
>> require that further action be taken in order for this to happen.
>>
>> Can you and/or the other chairs provide clarification?
>
> I've asked my fellow co-chairs to help provide a ruling on part of this
> issue. Specifically, I think the question is whether adopting Manu's
> proposal would imply an automatic resolution by the Working Group to publish
> a First Public Working Draft of the split spec, or if a separate FPWD
> resolution would be required. After thinking about it, I can see arguments
> both ways. I can understand that this would affect many people's willingness
> to support Manu's proposal, so we should settle on an answer to this one way
> or the other. I expect future Change Proposals may also call for splits, so
> it would be good to clear this up for the future as well.

Excellent. I agree that clarification on this going forward would help
to ensure that we know what could happen when we ask for splitting of
pieces of the HTML5 spec.

At a minimum, we can be aware of the issues, and write change
proposals accordingly.

The challenge I think is that sometimes, such as with Microdata, the
person proposing the split is a person not necessarily interested in
supporting the separated section as a separate specification. Those
writing a counter-proposal, aren't stepping up to fill this void,
because their proposal is focused on keeping the section in the
document.

So there's a gap when it comes to ensuring that what happens is
exactly what we would expect -- the third path of separate the
section, and ensure that the split spec is properly maintained.

>
> I can tell you right now that publishing a First Public Working Draft,
> whether via Change Proposal or otherwise, does not commit the Working Group
> to go to Last Call on anything. Publishing a Working Draft does not create
> an automatic commitment to advance further on the standards track. Per
> Process however, we do have to eventually either advance to Last Call and
> beyond, or publish a WG Note indicating no further work. I don't think
> anything we do now can pre-commit us to publish a future draft as a Last
> Call Working Draft.
>

If we can avoid a lot of unnecessary Notes, I think that would be
good. If there is no intention of supporting Microdata if it is split
from HTML5, if the people who like it aren't willing to support it,
then it shouldn't automatically enter the the LC cycle--or should it?
Do we want to maintain the history of the work for future efforts and
interest?

Regardless, thanks for getting clarification on this one. I do have
other suggested splits in the pipeline that will most likely be future
issues, and I'll want to know how to handle as change proposals.

> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>

Shelley
Received on Monday, 7 December 2009 16:01:55 UTC

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