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

Re: Change Proposals and FPWD Resolutions

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:25:14 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0270912090825s1e42ebf4l75e1645af6ec6ace@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> Shelley Powers wrote:
>> I agree that combing two separate actions into one change proposal is
>> a mistake. I'm disappointed that the action of removing Microdata from
>> the HTML5 spec have now been tied into automatically publishing
>> Microdata as FPWD.
>
> What do you think about an additional straw poll option for those that
> agree with the split, but disagree with publishing HTML+Microdata as FPWD?

The problem with this is that we have the three straw poll entries:

Leave MD in

Remove MD and publish as FPWD

Remove MD and not do anything (which doesn't preclude a group of
people eventually publishing MD as a FPWD)

Now, you have five people vote to remove MD and publish it as FPWD,
and three to just remove it. But you have six to leave the MD in.

Even though the people who want microdata removed is larger than those
wanting it to remain, it will continue to remain, because the vote is
now split on what to do with mirodata after the split.

There should be one clean straw poll vote: leave microdata in, or remove it

Then, those people who want to support Microdata as a separate FPWD,
can do so, and we know there is then a good possibility it will at
least be supported, and not just end up as a Note.

We can't compare Microdata to RDFa any longer. RDFa was never in the
HTML5 specification, so proposing RDFa-in-HTML as a separate document
never had a two part aspect to it: it was published as a FPWD. We
could have considered pushing for RDFa in the HTML5 spec, but most of
us didn't feel such inclusion was either necessary, or in the best
interest of either RDFa or HTML5.

Microdata is not the same as RDFa. It was arbitrarily added to the
HTML5 specification, without prior discussion or consensus of this
group. So there are two parts to it: the first being to remove it from
the spec, and then the second, which is what to do with it.

>
>> I'm keeping in mind, though, that just because a
>> document is published as FPWD doesn't mean it progresses. If no one
>> steps forward to support the draft, it will eventually end up as a
>> note.
>
> So, here the basic premises that led to the inclusion of automatically
> publishing HTML+Microdata as FPWD:
>
> - A non-trivial amount of work and discussion has been expended on
>  developing Microdata.
> - There are at least 3 supporters of Microdata as well as spec text that
>  is stabilizing.
> - The Microdata spec meets all FPWD requirements.
> - A number of individuals don't like RDFa (for a variety of reasons) and
>  want a workable alternative.
>

Then it is up to the supporters of the Microdata to propose a FPWD.
Are you a supporter of Microdata? Are you willing to continue working
on Microdata into the future?

We have to assume that if the support for Microdata remains true,
regardless of whether it is in the HTML5 spec or not, that the support
will lead it to become a FPWD. But it is up to those who support
Microdata to make this move.

> There are several outcomes that may occur if Microdata is split from HTML5.
>
> 1. The spec is dropped entirely because it is not a problem nor a
>   solution that the editor nor the community wants to continue to
>   promote.
> 2. The spec continues to be worked on, and thus will inevitably be
>   published as a FPWD.
>
> I think #1 is unlikely, or rather, it would be very strange if Microdata
> ceased to be worked on just because it was split from the HTML5
> specification. I think #2 is more likely, and in order for the work to
> continue, the publishing of the HTML+Microdata FPWD is inevitable.
>

Again, let this come about because people want to support Microdata.

>> I hope, though,  that we don't get into the habit of littering this
>> group's steps with the bodies of numerous FPWD that end up becoming
>> notes. Our task should be to remove confusion, not add to it. To
>> simplify, not clutter.
>
> I agree. Keep in mind that we're only talking about Microdata, not a
> general habit of automatically publishing FPWDs whenever something is
> split from the HTML5 spec - that would, IMHO, be a very bad habit to
> pick up. The reason automatic FPWD is being considered is due to the
> specific circumstances surrounding HTML+Microdata and not because this
> should be a general rule.
>

But we're dealing with a new procedure now, and we're setting
precedent. We have to be really careful with what we do with this
first test of the new Change process.

> -- manu
>

Shelley
Received on Wednesday, 9 December 2009 16:25:49 UTC

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