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

Re: Dropping Microdata entirely

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:18:26 -0800
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <89E0E073-2D1D-42FA-8A0C-898C07DD5C70@apple.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>

Some comments on selected parts of your message:

On Dec 7, 2009, at 8:01 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:

> 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 feel pretty confident in stating the following: If no one actually  
steps up to produce the split out draft and prepare it for FPWD, then  
we're not going to block HTML5 Last Call on someone writing it. Only  
on the removal from HTML5.

In practice, I think it's highly likely that someone will produce a  
suitable split-out draft if Manu's Change Proposal goes through.


> 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?

Publishing a Working Draft doesn't "automatically enter the LC cycle".  
It just shows a snapshot of the Working Group's current work, a  
snapshot that does not even need to have consensus or satisfy  
requirements, per the W3C Process. Historically, the Chairs have been  
inclined to be extremely generous about publishing Working Drafts. I  
tend to agree; I think that FPWD is not the right time to prejudge  
whether a particular draft will end up satisfying requirements and  
achieving consensus sufficient to advance to Last Call or beyond. I  
think many members of the HTML WG have a similar view, and have  
supported publication of Working Drafts even when they disagree with  
the contents.

I do agree with concerns from some Working Group members (e.g. Henri  
Sivonen) that in the past, Working Group Notes from other W3C Working  
Groups have inappropriately been cited as normative references. If we  
end up end-of-lifting some Working Drafts as WG Notes, then we will  
have to make sure to put a very clear "tombstone" indicator, very  
clearly stating that the work is abandoned and should not be  
referenced by anyone, as suggested by Sam Ruby.

Received on Monday, 7 December 2009 16:19:10 UTC

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