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

Re: microdata use cases and Getting data out of poorly written Web pages

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 18:18:31 -0700
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-id: <188A0B07-7B19-4C3D-93F2-C93B966C426B@apple.com>
To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Hey Ben,

I seem to recall you said before that RDFa was designed without  
considering the requirements of text/html, and that it should not be  
seen as constraining the text/html syntax. You also described most of  
the deployments of RDFa in text/html you cite below as "experimental",  
and said they should not be considered to make the text/html syntax a  
done deal.

Given this, I do not give great weight to your objection. You can't  
have it both ways.

Regads,
Maciej


On May 10, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Ben Adida wrote:

>
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> It appears that Ian is on the cusp of making a proposal.  It may  
>> turn out to be something that people can live with, and if so, I'll  
>> be glad to declare consensus
>
> The proposal is up, and, as Creative Commons rep, I cannot live with  
> it (it's not even close, frankly.)
>
> First, this gratuitously ignores much existing spec work and much  
> existing deployment (Yahoo, CC, MySpace, Slideshare, the UK  
> government, the US government, etc.) with a number of use cases that  
> are simply not taken into account (Manu has discussed these at  
> length on the WHATWG list). When another spec solves the problem and  
> has been deployed by significant players, the first step is to  
> consider how that spec can be integrated to the fullest extent.
>
> So, I cannot live with something that throws away existing important  
> implementations of the *exact* same use cases for no valid technical  
> reason. The cost to existing implementors is far too high.
>
> In addition, this proposal *specifically* conflicts with RDFa by  
> reusing RDFa attributes (i.e. @property) with a different  
> interpretation. In other words, of all possible approaches to the  
> problem, the HTML5 group chose an approach that specifically  
> conflicts with the only other existing W3C spec for the given use  
> cases. I think this may be a W3C first.
>
> I absolutely cannot live with that.
>
> I note, as a side point, that it's fairly clear this conflict was by  
> design (since it was said that @property is "borrowed from RDFa").  
> In other words, whereas typical W3C groups go out of their way to  
> prevent conflict with other specs, this group is currently actively  
> creating conflict.
>
> -Ben
>
Received on Monday, 11 May 2009 01:19:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:03 UTC