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

Re: Does anyone like microdata?

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:43:09 -0500
Message-ID: <4A49356D.8000706@burningbird.net>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
CC: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
Robin Berjon wrote:
> Hi Shelley,
>
> On Jun 29, 2009, at 22:26 , Shelley Powers wrote:
>> You specifically did not want to hear from those who don't like the
>> section.
>
> Maciej's original questions were "Does anyone agree with the inclusion 
> of the microdata section?" and "In particular, does anyone think 
> microdata is better than including no solutions to address the use 
> cases at which it is aimed?"
>
> That's a very, very long way away form not wanting to hear from people 
> who don't like the section. In fact, it is asked in a manner that is 
> slanted towards non-inclusion of microdata. Anyone agreeing with the 
> underlying suggestion that the section might be dropped was obviously 
> more than welcome to strengthen that option.
>
> After all, in the email to which you responded Maciej didn't ask "is 
> there anyone who disagrees with the way in which I asked this 
> question?" and yet you provided your input.
>
> If you disagreed with the way in which the initial questions were 
> framed, you were more than welcome to broaden the scope of the enquiry 
> by posting to the same thread with additional questions. Yet instead 
> you chose to wait and then rant. With the best of intentions it's hard 
> to find that constructive.
>
We will have to disagree as to how to interpret the intent of Maciej's 
questions. I also don't believe that disagreement is equivalent to a 
rant. For instance, I don't consider your response back to me to be a 
rant.  But this a reference to meta-discussion, and Sam has asked us to 
refrain from such, so I'll not continue.

I was curious to see if anyone did agree with the section. I felt that 
entering an unasked for opinion would sidetrack the discussion. It 
wasn't until Maciej's conclusion that I felt it was time to respond.

I wouldn't consider the response overly positive, especially in light of 
some of the disagreement I've seen about the microdata section, and the 
vocabularies at the WhatWG before I stopped following the group. In 
particular, I've not seen anything positive from the people from the 
people who submitted the original semantic metadata use cases. Frankly, 
I get the impression that some of these people have given up any and all 
interest in the HTML 5 specification, directly after the microdata 
section was proposed. But that's my opinion based on observation.

More importantly, we do not want to get into references to people who 
won't identify themselves, or won't respond directly.

So we have three positive results. and one which was positive, but just 
as willing to pull the entire section into its own document, and let it 
live or die on its own merits.

Shelley
Received on Monday, 29 June 2009 21:43:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:04 UTC