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

Re: Change Proposals and FPWD Resolutions

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:34:54 -0500
Message-ID: <4B1FEDCE.1080308@intertwingly.net>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, public-html@w3.org
Shelley Powers wrote:
> 
> Yes, Manu's proposal is clear and concise. But I think a third
> proposal should not be put forth, that of dropping Microdata, as I
> originally asked earlier in the week, and now I don't have time to do
> so.

I'm assuming "not" is a typo for "now"?

I disagree about the urgency, but if anybody cares to put forward such a 
proposal, we would consider it, whether it be this week, or early next 
year (and therefore after this poll).

I'll also note that we are not talking at the moment about endorsing 
Microdata or not.  It already has been published, and published with the 
following disclaimer:

   The publication of this document by the W3C as a W3C Working Draft
   does not imply that all of the participants in the W3C HTML working
   group endorse the contents of the specification. Indeed, for any
   section of the specification, one can usually find many members of
   the working group or of the W3C as a whole who object strongly to the
   current text, the existence of the section at all, or the idea that
   the working group should even spend time discussing the concept of
   that section.

We are not talking about changing that disclaimer.  Nor are we 
guaranteeing that Microdata will make it to Recommendation status, 
either in anything resembling its current form, or even at all.

Now, I don't mean to minimize the importance of the upcoming poll.  It 
will set precedent, both for microdata, and for the criteria as to when 
sections should be split out.  Specific rationale and objections will 
have been heard by the time a decision is made, and this will set a 
benchmark for future arguments.

As an example, if it turns out that the decision is made to keep 
Microdata in the HTML5 spec at this time, that won't prevent future 
arguments being made to remove it entirely, or to split it out -- it is 
just that such arguments will have to take into consideration the 
decision that was already made, and generally have to present 
significant new evidence.

Additionally, and again, if Microdata is kept in, then future requests 
to split some other section out will need to make stronger arguments 
than were made for splitting Microdata out.

And for completeness, the converse of both of these are true: if 
Microdata is split out, that won't prevent reintegrating the function 
back into the mainline spec, and will effectively place an upper bar on 
the amount of rationale required to split something out.

So, in either case, it will set precedent, but will only set precedent, 
if that makes any sense.  Each case will be decided based on the merits 
of that particular case, and each case will inevitably be different. 
And new evidence is always a possibility.

> Shelley

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 9 December 2009 18:35:38 UTC

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