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

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:31:04 -0700
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <A3D685B3-AC7C-46D0-987E-9F2274CAE118@apple.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>

Incidentally, I feedback from the Working Group is welcome and  
encouraged on the topic of whether Microdata should be split out of  
the main spec, even in advane of the Change Proposal. Right now it's  
not clear to me who in the Working Group is in favor of or against  
this change, and why.

  - Maciej

On Oct 14, 2009, at 8:45 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:

> (bcc: RDFa Developer Community)
>
> ISSUE-76  : http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76
> ACTION-139: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/139
>
> HTML+RDFa is scheduled to be published as a HTML WG Working Draft
> tomorrow. While that addresses most of the concerns for defining  
> RDFa in
> HTML for now, two work products remain to be discussed. Those are:
>
> 1. The stand-alone HTML5+Microdata draft:
>
>   http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/microdata.html
>
> 2. Ensuring that all normative references to RDFa and Microdata are
>   removed from the HTML5 specification:
>
>   http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-nosemantics.html
>
> Note that the two drafts above are 45 days old and will have to be
> updated before publishing an HTML+Microdata FPWD or an HTML5- 
> NoSemantics
> FPWD.
>
> Here are the basic premises and reasoning behind the two drafts listed
> above:
>
> * Either RDFa or Microdata (or both) may fail in the marketplace.
> * It is more productive for philosophically divergent communities
> (RDFa/Microdata) within a larger community (HTML WG) to have their own
> work products during a period of active debate. Those complete work
> products should only be presented to the larger group for consensus  
> when
> they reach maturity.
> * Both HTML+RDFa and HTML+Microdata should be allowed to become mature
> drafts before consensus on inclusion or dismissal is discussed.
> * Having the RDFa and Microdata specification separate from the HTML5
> specification will allow those technologies to evolve independently  
> from
> HTML5 (after REC).
>
> Possible conclusions:
>
> * If either RDFa or Microdata fail in the marketplace in the long- 
> term,
> it would be advisable to allow either (or both) to fail without  
> having a
> negative impact on the HTML5 spec proper.
> * The HTML+RDFa and HTML+Microdata drafts should be allowed to mature
> until Last Call before one or both are selected for inclusion into
> HTML5. A productive way to enable that maturation process is to  
> separate
> the concerns into separate documents.
> * If we don't separate the documents into different work products, the
> alternative is to argue over which work product to allow, which does  
> not
> lead to the production of a specification outlining each philosophy.
> Worse, it may prevent a particular work product from being developed  
> to
> maturity before it is struck down.
>
> It is for these reasons that the two specifications listed above  
> (after
> they have been updated and revised) should be published as FPWDs.
>
> -- manu
>
> -- 
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: The Pirate Bay and Building an Equitable Culture
> http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/08/30/equitable-culture/
>
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 16:37:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:50 GMT