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

Re: use case focus - resending

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 16:01:12 -0400
Message-ID: <4A09D588.4080807@intertwingly.net>
To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
CC: public-html@w3.org
Shelley Powers wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> I'm not going to disagree with anything said here, but I will try to 
>> add a bit of perspective based on timelines and locations
>>
>> Shelley Powers wrote:
>>> I'm resending this as the email system seems to have eaten the first 
>>> message:
>>>
>>> I'm concerned that the focus on semantic markup in HTML5 has turned 
>>> from a review of the many use cases that have been submitted (see 
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Apr/0208.html), 
>>> to a focus on implementation details of Ian's Microdata proposal. 
>>> This is the unfortunate consequence of the HTML WG's CRT process.
>>
>> I'll note that Ian's use cases were posted on 23 April, i.e., nearly 
>> three weeks ago.
>>
>>> We may find that as Ian continues his review of the use cases, that 
>>> the Microdata proposal will change, or issues related to the overall 
>>> effectiveness of Microdata proposal will arise.
>>>
>>> As it is, we've already discovered that Ian has made incorrect 
>>> assumptions in at least one use case, but when I pointed out the 
>>> incorrect assumption, Ian didn't respond with a correction to his use 
>>> case review.
>>
>> I believe that you are referring to something that you posted on 
>> Sunday morning, i.e., less than three days ago?
> 
> I wouldn't be so impatient, if I wasn't watching a great deal of effort 
> going into cementing microdata as _the_ approach, before we've even had 
> much of a discussion on it.
> 
> After today, though, I'm less concerned. Much less concerned.

:-)

As near as I can tell, the announcement is totally vaporware at this 
point, but at least it is from a credible source.

I still maintain that somebody needs to produce an "RDFa for HTML" draft 
specification; the question as to whether that particular content needs 
to be in or separate from the HTML 5 specification are secondary, IMHO.

>> Credibility, however, is a more difficult issue to address.  All I can 
>> say is that if issues are raised in the working group (and we have a 
>> formal issue tracker and bugzilla instance to help us), all such 
>> issues will be addressed before drafts advance; and furthermore I 
>> intend to give everybody sufficient time to adequately participate.
>>
> I will then discover the arcane rituals one must take in order to add 
> this as an open issue. Slitting the neck of a chicken at midnight I'm 
> sure will figure into the procedure...

Quick overview:

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/ => Bugzilla and Tracker.

Bugzilla has a New Account link.  To get an account on the issue 
tracker, simply ask Mike Smith or Dan Connolly.

Totally optional, but Thursdays we have a phone call.  Announcements for 
such calls are made on public-htmlg-announce approximately 24 hours 
before the meeting.  Stating an issue there will generally cause an 
issue to be opened for you and an action assigned.

If all else fails, let me know and I will open an issue on your behalf. 
  But you impress me as a DIY type of person :-).

> Shelley

- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 12 May 2009 20:01:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:36 GMT