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

Re: ISSUE-76: Need feedback on splitting Microdata into separate specification

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:21:15 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0270912100521q173f0ec8s8571cdb024aec43e@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 7:18 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:00 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>>>> I have updated the counter-proposal located on the ESW Wiki at
>>>>> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ChangeProposals/KeepMicrodata .
>>>> "If Microdata were to be split from the HTML spec, it is possible that
>>>> control of it would move to a separate working group, which would move part
>>>> of HTML's development out of the hands of the working group chartered to
>>>> develop HTML."
>>>> How so, without the HTML WG agreeing to that?
>>> This was a point Shelley brought up, I believe:
>>>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Dec/0189.html
>>> Since nobody questioned it when Shelley suggested it, I presumed it was a
>>> good argument and suggested to Tab that it might be worth taking her
>>> suggestion into account.
>> It would be helpful if you'd be a *bit* more concrete in what you're
>> referring to (why waste other people's time looking up one sentence in a 10
>> page email when you don't have to?).
>> *Assuming* you're referring to:
>> "Actually this really is a question of control. If pieces are split off
>> from the HTML5 document, they could end up in their own working
>> groups, and with their own editors. That means this group, and you,
>> would have little control over the spec, if this were to happen."
>> So yes, if something is split into a separate spec, and then the WG agrees
>> to hand this spec over to somebody else, somebody else would be in control.
>> By definition.
>> On the other hand, working on microdata-like stuff *is* in our charter, so
>> right now it's not clear to me why the WG *would* pass control to a
>> different Working Group.
>> BR, Julian
> Having discussions of any form in this group is becoming impossible,
> because all we're doing now is waiting on each other's words, like a
> cougar waits on the next sheep coming down the mountain.
> I would suggest that we all not take each other's sentences out of
> context, because all we do is end up looking like petty children
> indulging in playground taunts. "But he said..." "Did not!" "Did too!"
> "Did not!" It's not fun, and it's embarrassing.
> We have a change proposal in process, now. All sides will be heard. I
> suggest we focus on specifics, and work within the change process.
> My comment was not a suggestion, and that's obvious to anyone, but
> yes, if split off, and if the group that supports Microdata does so
> desire, it can end up under another charter, or group. Little
> different than what's happening with other various parts that have
> been split off from the HTML5 specification. And that doesn't mean it
> won't have the same people involved.
> And it might actually do better. After all, we haven't shown ourselves
> to be either a model of efficiency, or intra-group cooperation.
> Then again, it may not. We may want to hold on to it. Our baby, how
> can we let it go?
> Who knows? Maybe in the end, HTML5 will be released by a completely
> separate group, too--if the W3C and the major vendors involved in this
> group decide that we're embarrassing them.
> The world if full of endless possibilities. Me, I'll see how the
> Change Process goes this first time, and worry about the future after.
> Shelley

Darn typos....The world _is_ full of endless possibilities.

Received on Thursday, 10 December 2009 13:21:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:55 UTC