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

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

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:50:04 -0500
Message-ID: <4AD6013C.8000407@burningbird.net>
To: public-html@w3.org
> 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

Since you've limited this to WG members, I rejoined.

I agree with Manu, and I felt his reasoning was sound, and logical.

I also can't help thinking that his response was in line with procedures 
in place in this working group, when the action items were assigned to him.

Shelley




>
> 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 16:50:44 UTC

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